with those produced by the faith once delivered to the saints; that system demonstrably, is the faith which was once delivered to the saints. Identity of moral effect, proves identity of moral cause.

The illustration of the argument from effects must consist of many particulars, and of matters of fact. The argument, therefore, can only be stated concisely, without attempting to answer every possible objection. The facts, too, may be regarded by some as invidious. I have only to say that no fact will be stated, as such, which is not believed to be notoriously true, and, if denied, capable of unequivocal proof; and as to the invidious bearing of matters of fact, or of arguments, I am persuaded it is both a false delicacy and an unsound cause, which would shrink from this test, and shield itself under forms of alleged decorum. But I must be allowed to believe, also, that no real decorum is violated by the statement of facts or the pressure of arguments, where the object is important, the design honest, and the manner sober and respectful. Systems of religion, as well as of natural philosophy, may be brought to the test of actual experiment. "By their fruits shall ye know them " But if the moral world were by the laws of decorum closed against us; and we might only theorise without, upon practical tendencies, and not enter it to collect and appeal to facts; we might contend earnestly, but certainly should contend to very little purpose. To the word and testimony of God. and to matters of fact we appeal.

We observe then that the evangelical system occasions the same objections precisely now, which were occasioned by the faith once delivered to the saints.

Such an exhibition was given of old of the particular Providence of God, as occasioned, on the part of thieves, and liars, and adulterers, and idolaters, the extenuating plea, "We are delivered to do all these abominations."* God governs the moral world by such irresistible influence, that crimes are as much a matter of physical necessity as rain and

* Jer. vii, 10.

sunshine.

Do I need to say to this audience, that the charge constantly urged against the Decrees of God, as an article of the evangelical system, is, that it destroys accountable agency, and makes men machines, and all actions necessary by an irresistible fatality. The faith of the saints then and the evangelical faith are perverted in this article exactly alike.

The ancient faith included an article which led the wicked among the Jews to extenuate their crimes by the allegation, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge;"* i. e. Sin in man is a physical property, transmitted from father to son, as bones and sinews are, and alike inconsistent with choice or blame.

And is not the objection, urged against the doctrine of Original Sin, as contained in the evangelical system, the same? The inspired answer to the objection of old was, That children are accountable only for their own voluntary exercises and deeds; and this is the reply returned now by the patrons of the evangelical system.

The degree of human Depravity as taught in the Bible, led the people in a time of great wickedness, to say, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them and die, how should we then live?" i. e. If we be dead in sin, to the exclusion of all spiritual life, how can we be free agents, and how can we help ourselves, or be to blame?— and as if they had been told by the prophet, that their death in sin was voluntary and criminal, though entire and certain in its efficacy; they seem to say, Well, if we are so wicked, then, that we certainly shall pine away and die in our sins, how can we be to blame? If we shall not turn of ourselves, how can we turn; and of what use is ability, that will never be exerted. Now are not these precisely the objections which are at this day alleged, constantly, against the doctrines of man's entire Depravity, and moral Inability, as articles of the evangelical system.

Our Savior asserts the necessity of some great change to qualify a man for the kingdom of heaven; which, to a ruler

* Ezek. xviii, 2.

+ Ezek. xxxiii, 10.

in Israel, appeared mysterious and even impossible. And is there not a great change insisted on in the evangelical system as indispensable to salvation; to which masters in Israel now, confess, that they are strangers; and which they regard as impossible without the destruction of free-agency and accountability?

The manner of a sinner's justification was delivered to the saints, in such terms, as occasioned the objection, that it made void the law: superseding the obligations and motives to a moral life, and leading to licentiousness. "Do "Shall we conwe then make void the law through faith?” tinue in sin that grace may abound?" And is not this precisely the objection which has been urged against the doctrine of Justification by faith, as contained in the evangelical system, from the time of the Reformation to this day.

The saints were taught something concerning the sovereignty of God, as having mercy on whom he would; and punishing whom he would;-which produced the objection, "Why then doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will? If wicked men receive their destination as God appoints; why does he blame them. If it be his will that they perish; and they do perish, are they not obedient; and why does he find fault?" And is not this the objection, which is urged unceasingly against the doctrine of Election, as taught in the evangelical system? To our reply, that the will of God, as a moral rule to man, and the will of God as a rule of administration to himself in disposing of rebels, are distinct; the answer is, "Metaphysics! metaphysics! The will of God is the will of God; and if sinners in any sense act in accordance with any will of God, they are obedient; and he has no cause to find fault." Now did the liberal exposition of the ninth of Romans ever produce, in the whole history of man, the objection which it produced from the lips of Paul, and still produces as explained by evangelical ministers? Or did it ever produce from liberal lips, the reply, "Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"-We have only to say, that the Apostle's answer to the objection is the same, which evangelical men have always returned, "Who art thou, O man, that re

pliest against God?" Shall a being of yesterday arraign the conduct of his Maker? Shall a rebel sit in judgment upon his God? Are not men rebels, justly doomed to die; and, in reference to their character and condition as condemned criminals, all clay of the same lump? And is not the discretion of God to pardon or reprieve as absolute as that of the potter over his clay, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? Do you object that the punishment threatened is unjust? But how could God make a vessel of mercy of one whose punishment would be unjust; or a vessel of wrath of one whose punishment would be undeserved? Do you call men impotent because I have compared them to clay; or assert that the sovereignty of God, in saving some, causes and renders unavoidable the destruction of them that perish? They perish for their crimes against law, who might have been executed without offers of pardon. They perish, who are able to accept the terms of pardon, for rejecting them. Nor are they cut down in haste. With much long suffering they are endured, while by despising the riches of the goodness of God, they fit themselves for destruction. Such is the evangelical reply; and such as we understand his language and argument, is the reply of Paul.

It was objected to the Gospel and conceded in the early age, that, few embraced it but the poor, and the common people. To the poor the Gospel is preached. Have any of the Scribes and Pharisees believed on him? The common people heard him gladly. Not many wise men after the fleshnot many mighty not many noble are called. Celsus, in the second century, exults in the fact, that so few in the higher classes of society had professed christianity, and pours contempt upon the cause as patronized only by mechanics and vulgar people.*

Now is it not notorious that the liberal system of doctrines, unpatronized by the civil power, has never been the religion of the common people in any country; but rather the relig ion of men of philosophical minds and literary habits: i. e. the

Are there no attempts making to create an impression now, that the liberal system is patronized peculiarly by persons in high life, by men of taste and talents, of wealth and refinement, and that the opposite system is fast going down, to be the religion of the common people only and the poor?

evangelical system has been patronized chiefly by that class of society, which patronized the faith delivered to the saints; while the oposite system has relied for patronage more commonly on the arm of government, and that class of men in society who as a body rejected the gospel. A late writer of high reputation on the liberal side in this country says, "It is not to be doubted that, throughout our country, a very large proportion of those men, who for their talents and learning and virtues, have the most influence in the community, and have it in their power to do the most towards giving a right direction to the public feeling and the public sentiment, are dissatisfied with the Calvinistic and Trinitarian form, in which they have had religion presented to them; but are prevented from making a public avowal of their opinions, by an unwillingness to encounter opposition, and obloquy, and loss of confidence, and the power of being useful."* The evangelical system in this country is embraced then, by the same classes extensively, which embraced the Gospel; and is extensively disapproved by that class of men who rejected the Gospel.

The faith delivered to the Saints occasioned a virulent hatred. It was not hatred of it as false, arising from an ardent love of truth. For Pharisees and Sadducees could tolerate each other; and Pagans could tolerate thirty thousand gods, with all their lust and blood.

And is not the evangelical system encountered by a virulence of opposition, in circumstances which show that it cannot arise from the love of truth or hatred of error. None will pretend that the effects of the evangelical system are as deplorable as the effects of idolatry in its present forms. The evangelical system has produced no temple of impure resort; no gratifications of lust enjoined as acts of worship, no blood of human victims; no burning of widows or drowning infants; no self-inflicted penal tortures. And yet such is the hatred of many to the evangelical system, that they oppose deliberately, all attempts to extend it to the heathen; and on the ground avowedly, that they had rath

Dr. Ware's letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists, pp. 146, 147.