APPENDIX.

REPLY

TO THE REVIEW OF DR. BEECHER'S SERMON DELIVERED AT WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, OCTOBER 15, 1823.

[The following reply was made to an article which appeared in the Christian Examiner, purporting to be a review of the sermon entitled "The faith once delivered to the saints." It is addressed to the Editor of the Christian Examiner, as it was originally designed for that work, but was afterwards inserted in the volume of the Christian Spectator, for 1825.]

SIR,

To the Editor of the Christian Examiner.

I RECEIVED and read the review of my Sermon, delivered at Worcester, in your number for January, 1824: and most of the remarks which I propose to submit to your consideration were written in the early part of that year; but circumstances which I need not explain, have prevented their publication until now.

It is not to be expected or claimed, that an author shall, in all respects, be gratified in the exhibition which is made of his opinions and arguments: and yet there are, doubtless, rules of controversy which the laws of equity acknowledge and protect. We are bound, for example, if we attempt to answer an extended complex 'argument, to give the argument entire; for moral evidence is but the accumulation of probabilities; and a partial statement of the argument is in effect a misrepresentation of it, as it supposes the writer to rely on the argument which is stated and replied to, when it may be, that he relies on it only as taken in connexion with the facts which are omitted.

In answering a complex argument, each particular which goes to constitute the entire argument, should be stated in its logical form, and in the words of the writer, or in language equally intelligible. Otherwise, how can the reader know what the argument is, or whether the reply be relevant or not? A mere allusion to the argument, without a statement of it in logical form, may answer the purpose of evasion, or declamation, or irrelevant reply, but never will answer the purpose of fair and honorable controversy.

It is equally plain that each argument replied to, should be met and answered as it is understood and relied on by our antagonist.

However near, the reply may approach to the point of the argument, if it does not meet it directly, the more ingenious is the sophistry, and the more

provoking are the misrepresentations; because, being numerous and of such nice discrimination, the reader is soon tired of sitting in judgment on such little matters; and the culprit when this end is achieved, turns and hurls back on his injured antagonist the odium of nice metaphysical distinction, and of vain jangling. One might as well go out "to seek a flea, or to hunt a partridge in the mountains," as to follow up with argument such dodging antagonists. And whether such conduct indicates a desire to know the truth or to avoid it, it is not difficult to perceive.

Another obvious rule of controversial equity is, that where matters of fact constitute the argument, the facts be noted in their logical bearing, and be replied to in point. Facts, when relevant, constitute the most invincible argument. Theories are nothing in their presence, and no honorable alternative remains, but to show their irrelevancy, or to admit the conclusion to which they tend. Silence in respect to them, or a mere allusion to them which affords no conception of their place and bearing in the argument, is inconsistent with argumentative uprightness.

Should the violation of these rules be the result of mistake, it would evince only incompetency for controversial writing. But if they should be the result of design, it would indicate insincerity in our search after truth, and a dishonorable and criminal disregard of moral principle. The man, who, in natural science, should resort to such measures to conceal or baffle the argument of his antagonist, would be regarded justly as the enemy of science. But how highly is the crime aggravated, when the concealment or evasion attempted respects revealed truth; and, as the case may be, those truths which are necessary to save men from destruction, and qualify them for heaven! Such unworthy conduct in theological writers, has created already, an extensive prejudice against controversy as the means of discovering truth; and the continuance of it by men of the clerical profession, would increase that prejudice greatly, and would justly forfeit the confidence which a christian public ought to be authorized to repose in their spiritual guides. If we consider also, the unavoidable imperfection of language as the vehicle of thought, and the utter inefficacy of civil coercion in the developement and preservation of truth, we shall perceive the necessity of an enlightened public opinion, which shall lay the tax of shame and of crime upon argumentative dishonesty. The rights of conscience are not to be invaded, but neither are they to be exercised with impunity in a wanton and unprincipled manner. The interests

of the community in revealed truth are as sacred as the rights of property; and the wilful perversion of an argument ought to be coupled with dishonor and crime in the public estimation, as really, as chicanery in law, the sequestration of property by theft, or the perversion of justice by a false oath. The object of religious controversy is not the concealment, but the discovery of the truth; not the display of dexterity in evading an argument, but of magnanimity in embracing its results; not the gratification of our pride, but the edification of our hearts, by receiving the truth in the love of it."

Nothing, I am aware, is more common than mutual accusations of unfairness in religious controversy, and the sorry exhibition of petulance and invective and the disgust I have felt at such exhibitions has kept me from personal controversy to this day. And if I thought that in the remarks I am about to make, I sould only add to these humiliating specimens of imbecility and acrimony, I would instantly lay down my pen. But the subject of the sermon is one on which I have entered with other motives than the desire of victory, and with other feelings towards Unitarians than those of unkindness. I believe sincerely, that the doctrines which they reject are the Gospel, and are necessary to their salvation ;-that the truth only is able to save them; and that error, however sincerely believed, will not save them. I had occasion to know that those who sit under Unitarian ministrations, do, extensively and greatly, misapprehend the doctrines which are held by the Orthodox; and that they do honestly suppose the Orthodox to believe and teach things which they utterly disclaim and abhor. It was my wish, therefore, to place before these children of the pilgrims, a plain, popular statement of the doctrines of their

fathers, as they are now understood and believed by their Orthodox brethren; believing, that they with us, may as yet be within the circumference of that covenant, whose blessings go down to the thousandth generation of them that fear God and keep his commandments, as our fathers feared and obeyed.' 1 wished also to accompany this explanatory statement of the Orthodox faith with some of those arguments which have long, to my mind, appeared unanswerable. And, Sir, I did indulge the hope, that the truth, freed from misapprehension and contemplated in its native majesty, simplicity, and beauty, and attended by its proper evidence, might allay the prejudices of many against it, commend itself to their consciences and their hearts, and become to them the power of God and the wisdom of God unto salvation. But however this hope might be realized or not, I did expect the gratification of knowing, and felt no small degree of curiosity to know, what could be said to an argument, in which I could detect no fallacy, by able and honest men who should look it in the face and answer it to the point.

And now, Sir, allow me to say, that it affords me no pleasure to affirm that my motives in writing and in desiring an answer have been defeated, so far as the influence of the review is concerned; and defeated in a manner, which involves, in my judgment, a violation of the preceding equitable rules of controversy. No person who reads only the review, can possibly possess himself of my entire argument; or understand the logical point and bearing of each particular argument; or what generally, are the matters of fact relied on; or what is the logical bearing of those which are alluded to. And what is still more to be regretted is, that the reply to particular arguments which is attempted, is made to the arguments, rather as alluded to, than as logically stated and evades the point of the argument, by replying to a position which the argument no where assumes. I am far from charging the reviewer with design in this logical aberration. But it did early occur to my mind, and has repeatedly been suggested to me by others, that if the reviewer had feared the effect of the doctrines and arguments as stated in the sermon, upon Unitarian congregations; and had set himself to write a review which should prevent them from knowing how the doctrines were stated, and by what arguments they were supported; and at the same time to create such a prejudice against the sermon as would keep the people generally from reading and judging for themselves, he could not have managed more adroitly than he has

done.

But in addition to this disappointment of all my reasonable, and as I must say, my benevolent hopes; I am charged with duplicity in what I have done. According to the reviewer, I have given an epitome of doctrine as the faith delivered to the saints, which is decidedly anti-calvinistic, and have falsely claimed that it is substantially the faith of the reformers, the Puritans, the fathers of New England, and the great body of the Orthodox in our country. Thus disappointed and misrepresented, I have to request that you will do me the justice to re-publish a corrected statement of my argument, and a vindication of my good name in your Miscellany,-the only vehicle of information which can render the redress as extensive as the injury. The love and fearless pursuit of the truth, professed by Unitarians, justify the confidence with which I appeal both to your candor and to your magnanimity. Should the length of the article seem to furnish an apology for declining its insertion, you will readily perceive that, if the mistakes in the review had been fewer, my reply had been proportionably shorter; and that equity demands that the explanation be co-extensive with the occasions for it which are created by misrepresentations, however undesigned. Had my arguments been suppressed, or misrepresented by typographical mistakes, the length of the errata would not be deemed a reason for refusing their insertion; and it will not seem to you, I trust, a matter of much consequence in respect to the claims of justice, whether the causes of the injury sustained are mechanical, or intellectual, or moral.

I shall first attend to the charge preferred against me, of substituting the Arminian for the Calvinistic system; and of claiming, (ignorantly or wick

edly,) that it is the faith of the Orthodox now, and the faith of the fathers of New England,-of the puritans and of the reformers.

This system, which I have denominated evangelical, the reviewer declares to be an innovation upon the popular (Calvinistic) faith; and that it is neither strictly, nor even substantially, the same with the doctrines held by the reformers, the puritans, the fathers of New England, or the great body of the Orthodox in our country. It is, he declares," decidedly anti-calvinistic; expressly denying some of the peculiarities of Calvinism; distinctly asserting none of them, nor even implying one of them, in a manner to make it obvious to the mind of a common reader." Upon these charges I remark,

1. That the Calvinistic and anti-calvinistic systems of doctrine are in direct opposition on those points which constitute the two systems; and that between them there is no middle system. Man is, or he is not, entirely depraved: he needs, or he does not need, a moral renovation to fit him for heaven. This renovation is achieved by the special influence of the Holy Spirit, as a free sovereign gift; or it is in some way secured by good works, and human endeavors. Men are justified by faith only, or they are not; and all saints do persevere, or they do not. Calvinists take one side on these points, and Arminians take the other; and there is no middle ground.

2. The Arminian system of doctrine and the Unitarian are the same on those points, in which both differ from the Calvinistic system. Unitarians acted with the remonstrants when the Arminian system was formed. It is the system adopted generally, and defended in opposition to Calvinism, by English Unitarians, and is the system substantially, which Dr. Ware supports in agreement with Taylor, and in opposition to Edwards and Dr. Woods. The Arminian and Unitarian systems of doctrine are therefore the same, as opposed to Calvinism.

3. Unitarians claim that the anti-calvinistic system is the true primitive faith. They hold that their interpretation of the Bible on the doctrinal points, is according to the mind of the spirit-is the truth as understood and professed by the primitive church :-Therefore,

4. The doctrines contained in the evangelical system, as it is denominated in the sermon, are the faith delivered to the saints, the reviewer himself being judge. He does not complain of me for claiming them as such, but only for claiming their agreement with the Calvinistic system-which he denies. He declares that the Calvinistic system is not, and that the anti-calvinistic system is, the faith delivered to the saints; and that the system which I have set forth is decidedly anti-calvinistic, and is of course the faith once delivered to the saints. The reviewer therefore claims the doctrines laid down in the evangelical system as the true anti-calvinistic, Unitarian, primitive faith. He claims that I have abandoned the Calvinistic system, and have come over to the Arminian Unitarian faith; and the only front of my offending is, that not having the capacity to perceive, or the magnanimity to avow my conversion to Arminianism, I have attempted to persuade the public that this anti-calvinistic Unitarian creed of mine is substantially the faith of the reformers, the puritans, the fathers of New England, and the great body of the Orthodox in our country.

When I first read these charges, I was disposed to bestow a smile upon them, and let them pass. But in attending to the course of the controversy between Unitarians and the Orthodox, I perceived what appeared to me a settled determination in Unitarians, to make the impression on the public mind, that every variation in the explanation, statement, and proof of our doctrines, occasioned by the progress of mental philosophy, or of biblical criticism, or by Unitarian misrepresentations, is an abandonment of our first principles and an approximation to Unitarianism. I have heard the boastings reiterated of Professor Stuart's approximation to Unitarianism, and of my own Arminian tendencies in preaching and lately I have read in Dr. Channing's sermon, that "It is a plain matter of fact, that the hard features of that religious system, which has been received by tradition from our fathers,' are greatly softened; and that a necessity is felt by those who hold it, of

:

accommodating their representations of it more and more to the improved philosophy of the human mind, and to the undeniable principles of natural and revealed religion. Unconditional election is seldom heard of among us. The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, is hastening to join the exploded doctrine of transubstantiation. The more revolting representations of man's state by nature are judiciously kept out of sight; and, what is of still greater importance, preaching is incomparably more practical than formerly."* I have concluded, therefore, that the time has come which demands an examination of these claims. If Calvinists are becoming Unitarians in doctrine, without the capacity to know it, or the magnanimity to own it; let it be known, and let them have their reward. And if Unitarian writers are setting up their claim falsely, from ignorance, or from an apprehension that the Calvinistic system presented to their people as Calvinists believe and teach it, would convict them of misrepresentation, and bring upon them the just indignation of an injured community whose confidence they have abused; then let this be known, and let Unitarians have their reward.

I come then to the question, are the doctrines contained in the discourse, entitled "the faith once delivered to the saints," the same, substantially, with the doctrines held by the reformers, the puritans, the fathers of New England, and which are now held by the great body of the Orthodox in our country;-or are they "decidedly anti-calvinistic," exhibiting, substantially, the system which has been embraced by Arminians and Unitarians?

I claim that the epitome in the sermon embodies substantially, and repre sents fairly, all the elementary and fundamental principles of that system which have been denominated Calvinistic; and the reviewer claims that they are an "innovation upon the popular Calvinistic faith; that they err and stray entirely from the Calvinistic system; and are decidedly anti-calvinistic."

1. My first remark is, that if the system of doctrines which I have set forth is decidedly anti-calvinistic or Unitarian, then the world hitherto has been very much disquieted in vain on the subject of doctrinal disagreement; for if this creed of mine be Arminian or Unitarian, it is no less true, as I shall be able to show, that it is substantially Calvinistic-so that the controversialists on both sides have walked hitherto in a vain show, and have so fought as men that beat the air.

*If the meaning of Dr. Channing be, that the doctrines which, as mere abstract positions wear a repelling aspect, are, as now explained, seen to be the regular parts of a great system of moral government, in the administration of which justice and mercy are reconciled, and that mental philosophy has lent her aid in this exposition; that the doctrine of election is now so stated as admits of accountability and punishment, and stops the mouths of gainsayers;-that the imputation of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness are so stated, as to appear both practicable and rational; and that the doctrine of total depravity is now explained in a manner which shows both the falsehood and the absurdity of the statements and objections made concerning it, by its opponents;-or that, as the doctrines of the Bible are better understood, they produce an increase of practical preaching; it might all be admitted as a concise account of what we believe to be true. But if Dr. C. intends to insinuate or to say, that any one doctrine of the reformation has been given up, or the principle abandoned on which it has always rested, we request him to review this position, and to fortify it by evidence, or abandon it. Not one of the first principles of the doctrinal system of the reformers has been abandoned, while every one of them has been corroborated by a more accurate knowledge of mental philosophy, and of scriptural interpretation. The entire system never stood so impregnable as now, and never appeared so intelligible, so reasonable, so amiable, and at the same time, so terrible to guilty consciences, as now. And if Dr. C. supposes that the doctrine of man's depravity, or the doctrine of election, is not preached as often as they were, and that Calvinists are holding their peace on these points, he follows his own imagination instead of historical verity.

All the great doctrines of the reformation are preached more frequently, and more plainly and powerfully by the Orthodox in New England, than they were fifty, or even thirty years ago; and their faithful exhibition is attended by the power of God in those increasing revivals of religion which are carrying salvation through our land.