dlatttell IntDBrattH ffiibrarg 
 
 3tl;ata, ^sta forlt 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 BENNO LOEWY LIBRARY 
 
 COLLECTED 8Y 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 
 1854-1919 
 
 BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNFVERSITY 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BX9225.B41 A4 
 
 + 
 
 ieecher befo 
 
 3 1924 029 477 670 
 
 olln Overs 
 
m 
 
 Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029477670 
 
TRIAL AND ACQUITTAL 
 
 OF 
 
 L^ Y M A N- BEECHER, D. D 
 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE PRESBYTERY OF CINCINNATI, 
 
 ON CHARGES PREFERRED BY 
 
 JOSHUA L. WILSON, D. D. 
 
 REPOHTED FOR THE NEvV YORK OBSERVER, BY MR. STANSBVRY, 
 OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY ELI TAYLOR. 
 
 1835. 
 
TRIAL AND ACJCtUITTAL 
 
 OF 
 
 LYMAN BEECHER,D.D 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE PRESBYTERY OF CINCINNATI, 
 
 ON CHARGES PREFERRED BY 
 
 JOSHUA L. WILSON, D.D. 
 
 REPORTED FOR THE NE!vV YORK OBSERVER, BY MR. STANSBURY, 
 OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 CINCINNATL- 
 
 PUBLISHED BY ELI TAYLOR. 
 1835. 
 
PoR this full and impartial report of the most 'interesting ecclesiastical trial which ever occurred in this 
 country, the public are indebted to the enterprise of the Messrs. Morses, editors and publishers of the New 
 York Observer. At great expense they procured the attendance of Mr. Stansbury, whose reputation as a fair 
 and able reporter is unrivalled in the United States. As this trial occurred in the west, and will be likely to 
 have an important bearing on the interests of the Presbyterian church in the great valley, it was thought desir- 
 able to publish the report in a neat pamphlet, by which it would be more accessible, and more permanent than 
 in the columns of a newspaper. The reader will perceive that the controversy is purely theological. The 
 accused and accuser, have no personal contention. It is therefore hoped that this pamphlet, while it throws 
 light on subjects of vast interest to the Presbyterian church, will furnish no just occasion for revilers to heap 
 odium upon religion. If it paves the way for a happy and speedy termination of dissentions in one branch of 
 the church, and brings ministers and private members into more harmonious cooperation for the salvation of 
 souls, those who have contributed to its enlarged circulation, will unfeignedly rejoice. It is commended to 
 the patient and candid attention of the christian community, and to the bleesing of the Great Head of the 
 church. 
 
 5C 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 PRINTED BY F. S. BENTON, 
 
 S. E. rorner Main and Fifth streets. 
 
TRIAL. 
 
 The Presbytery of Cincinnati, to which Dr. 
 Beecher belongs, held an adjourned meeting in 
 that city, on Tuesday, the 9ih of June, 1835. — 
 Tile court consisted of the following members, 
 viz : 
 
 Ministers — J. L. Wilson, D. D., Lyman Beecher, 
 D. D.*, Andrew S. Morrison, Daniel Hayden, Francis 
 Monfort, Thos. J. Biggsf, J. L. Gaines, Sayres Gasley, 
 Benjamin Graves (Clerk), Artemas Bullard, Jolm 
 Spaulding, F. Y. Vail, Thos. Brainerd, A. T. Rankin, 
 Calvin E. StoweJ (Moderator), Augustus Pomroy, 
 George Beecher, Adrian L. Aton, E. Slack. 
 
 Ruling Elders — William Skillinger, J. G. Burnef, 
 Adam S. Walker, Simon Hageman, Peter H. Kem- 
 per, Andrew Harvey, William Cumback, Robert Por- 
 ter, John Arcliavd, Henry Hageman, A. B. Andrews, 
 Israel Btown, Bryce R. Blair, Wm. Carey. 
 
 The Presbytery was constituted with prayer: 
 when a sermon was delivered by the Rev. Cal- 
 vin Stowe, from Phil.iii. 16. 'Whereunto we 
 have attained, let us walk by the same rule, let 
 us mind the same thing.' 
 
 TlieRev. Dr. Wilson had, at a previous meet- 
 ing of Presbytery, brought forward certain 
 charges against the Rev. Dr. Beecher, and the 
 present meeting had been appointed to consider 
 and issue the accusations ; citations had been 
 issued, and the requisite steps taken to prepare 
 the case for trial. 
 
 The charges were then read as follows : 
 
 CHARGES OF WILSON VS. BEECHER. 
 
 Ti) the Moderator and Members of lire board of the Presbytery of 
 Citicintiati : — 
 
 Dear Brethren, — It is known to the trustees of 
 Lane Seminary, and to some of the members of Pres- 
 bytery, that after tiie appointment of the Rev. Lyman 
 Beecher, D. D. to tiie professorship whicii he now 
 holds, in that institution^ I more than once expressed 
 an opinion tliat he would not accept of tlie appointment, 
 because, as I thought, ho could not, conslslenlly with 
 his views in theology, adopt the standards of the Pres- 
 byterian church. 
 
 My opinion of Dr. Boeclier's theology was then found- 
 ed on my recollection of a conversation held with 
 him in 1817, and his sermon [lublished in 1827, enti- 
 tled ' The Native Character of Man.' When I heard 
 that Dr. Beecher had entered the Presbyterian church, 
 without adopting her standards, I was surprised, griev- 
 ed and alarmed. When he was received by tlie 
 Presbytery of Cincinnati from the 3d Presbytery of 
 New York, I was in the Moderator's chair, and was 
 denied the privilege of protesting against his admis- 
 
 sion, because, it was said, I had no right to protest in 
 a case, in which I had no right to vote. Afterwards it 
 was seen by publications, in dififerent periodicals, that 
 the soundness of Dr. Beecher's theology was called 
 in question, and this Presbytery was called upon 
 to take up charges against him on the ground of 
 general rumor. But the common fame was denied to 
 exist and the call was unheard. Subsequently the 
 sermon of Dr. Beecher on ' Dependence and Free 
 Agency' was circulated and highly commended.— 
 This Presbytery was then called upon to appoint a 
 committee to examine some of the Doctor's sermons 
 and report whether they contained doctrines at vari- 
 ance with the standards of our church. This call was 
 disregarded also. Complaint was made to the synod 
 of Cincinnati, and they said the presbytery could not 
 be compelled to take up charges, only by a re- 
 sporisible prosecutor. Being more and more grieved 
 and alarmed, I carried the matter up by appeal to the 
 last General Assembly. This appeal was cast out by 
 the judicial committee, because, it was said, that I 
 was not one of the original parties. Had I called 
 my appeal a complaint, it would have been tried. 
 
 Two facts have made this subject recently fla- 
 grant: 
 
 1. The public commendation of Dr. Beecher's the- 
 ology by perfectionists. 
 
 2. Some of the perfectionists have been inmates of 
 Lane Seminary. 
 
 In view of these things, and believing that Dr. 
 Beecher has contributed greatly to the propagation of 
 dangerous doctrines, I feel it my duty to bringcharges 
 against him before this presbytery. 
 
 1 . I charge Dr. Beecher with propagating doctrines 
 contrary to the word of God and the standards of the 
 Presbyterian church on the subject of the depraved 
 nature of man. 
 
 Specifications. — The scriptures and our standards 
 teach on the subject of a depraved nature, 
 
 1. That a corrupted nature is conveyed to all the 
 posterity of Adam, descending from him by ordinary 
 generation. 
 
 2. That from original corruption all actual trans- 
 gressions proceed. 
 
 3. That all the natural descendants of Adam are 
 conceived and born in sin. 
 
 4. That original sin binds tlie descendants of Adam 
 over to ilie wrath of God. 
 
 5. That the fall of Adam brought upon mankind the 
 loss of communion with God, so as we are by nature 
 children of wrath and boundslaves to satan. Con. 
 F., ch. vi., sec. 3, 4, 0. Larg. Cat. Ans. to Q. 26, 27. 
 Vide scrip, proofs, and short, cat. A. to Q. 18. 
 
 In opposition to this, Ih. Beecher teaches, 
 1. Tliat the depravity of man is voluntary. 
 
 * Professor of Theology 
 
 t Professor of Ecclesinslical History 
 
 :{ Professor of Languages 
 
 > in Lan 
 
 e Seminar}'. 
 
2. That neither a depraved nor holy nature are pos- 
 sible without undei'standing, conscience and choice. 
 
 3. That a depraved nature cannot exist without a, 
 vohintary agency. 
 
 4. That whatever may be the early constitution of 
 man, there is nothing in it and nothing witliheld from 
 it, which renders disobedience unavoidable. 
 
 5. That the first sin in every man is free and might 
 have been and ought to have been avoided. 
 
 6. That if man is depraved by nature, it is a volun- 
 tary nature that is depraved. 
 
 7. That this is according to the Bible. ' They go 
 astray as soon as they be born,' that is in early life, — 
 how early, so as to deserve punishnlent for actual sin, 
 God only knows. Vide Dr. Beecher's sermon on 
 Native Character, National Preacher, Vol. ii. No. 1, p. 
 11, 12. 
 
 . II. I charge Dr. Beecher with propagating (doctrines 
 contrary to the word of God, and the standards of 
 the Presbyterian church,— on the subjects of Total 
 Depravity and the work of the Holy Spirit in effectual 
 calling. 
 
 Specifications. — The scripture and our standards 
 teach on the subject of total depravity, 
 
 1. That by the sin of our first parents, all their na- 
 tural descendants are dead in sin and wholly defiled 
 in all the facullies of soul and body. 
 
 2. That by this original corruption, they are utterly 
 disabled and made opposite to all good. 
 
 3. That a natural man, being dead in sin, is not 
 able by his own strength to convert himself or prepare 
 himself thereto. 
 
 4. That no man is able either of himself or by any 
 grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the com- 
 mandments of God. Conf. ch. vi., sec. 2, 4. Ch. ix., 
 sec. 3. Larg. cat. A. to Q. 25, 149, 190. Short, cat. 
 A. to Q. 101, 103, and scripture proofs. 
 
 In opposition to this. Dr. Beecher teaches, 
 
 1. That man is rendered capable by his Maker of 
 obedience. 
 
 2. That ability to obey is indispensable to moral 
 obligation. 
 
 . 3. That where there is a want of ability to love 
 God, obligation to love ceases, whatever may be the 
 cause. 
 
 4. That the sinner is able to do what God 
 commands, and what being done, would save the 
 soul. 
 
 5. That to be able and unwilling to obey God, is 
 the only possible way in which a free agent can be- 
 come deserving of condemnation and punishment. 
 
 6. That there is no position which unites more uni- 
 versally and entirely the suti'rages of the whole human 
 race than the necessity of a capacity for obedience 
 to the existence of obligation and desert of punish- 
 ment. 
 
 7. That no otjligation can be created without a 
 capacity commensurate with the demand. 
 
 8. That ability commensurate with requirement is 
 the equitable foundation of the moral government of 
 Gid. 
 
 "■ 9. That this has been the received doctrine of the 
 orthodox chinch in all ages. 
 
 Vide Dr. Beecher's sermon on Native Character, p. 
 12, also his sermon on Dependence and Free Agency 
 pp. 11,21,19,23. 
 
 On the subject of total depravity, effectual calling, 
 and the Holy Spirit in the production of loving faith 
 the Scriptures and our standards leach, 
 
 1. The fallen man IS ■utterly disabled, &rii wholly 
 defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body 
 and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to 
 all evil by original corruption. 
 
 2. That from this original corruption do proceed all 
 actual transgressions. 
 
 3. That effectual calling is of God's free and 
 special grace — and a work of God's Spirit; that men 
 are altogether passive tliprein, until being quickened 
 and renewed by the Holy Spirit, they are thereby ena- 
 bled to answer this call. 
 
 4. That having a new heart and a new spirit creat- 
 ed in them, they are sanctified and enabled to be- 
 lieve. 
 
 5. That justifying faith is wrought in the heart of a 
 sinner by the Spirit and word of God, whereby he 
 is convinced of his disability to recover himself. 
 
 Conf. ch. vi sec. 1, 2, 4j ch. x. sec. 2, chap. 
 xiii sec. 1, ch. xiv sec. 1. Larg. Cat. Ans. to Quest. 
 72, and scripture proofs. 
 
 In opposition to this, Dr. Beecher teaches, 
 
 1. That man in his present state is able and only 
 unwilling to do what God commands, and which being 
 done would save the soul. 
 
 2. That the more clearly the light of convictioQ 
 shines, the more distinct is a sinner's perception that 
 he is not destitute of capacity, that is, of ability to 
 obey God. 
 
 3. That when the Holy Spirit comes to search 
 out what is amiss and put in order that which is out of 
 the way, he finds no impediment to obedience to be re- 
 moved, but only a perverted will; and all he accom- 
 plishes in the day of his power is to make the sinner 
 willing to submit to God. 
 
 4. That good men have supposed that they aug- 
 ment the evil of sin, and the justice, mercy and pow- 
 er of God in exact proportion as they throw down the 
 sinner into a condition of absolute impotency: that 
 he [Dr. Beecher] cannot perceive the wisdom of 
 their views; that a subject of God's government who 
 can but will not obey, might appear to himself much 
 more guilty than one whose capacity of obedience 
 had been wholly annihilated by the sin of Adam. — ' 
 Sermon on Dependence and Free Agency, &c. p. 11, 
 19, 20. 
 
 Note. Dr. B. uses the terms natural capacity and 
 natural ability in the same sense. Compare p. 27 
 with 31. Page 10, he calls it plenary power of a mor- 
 al agent. 
 
 III. I charge Dr. Beecher with propagating a doc- 
 trine of perfection contrary to the standards of the 
 Presbyterian churches. 
 
 Specifications. — Our standards teach , 
 
 1. That no man is able neither of himself nor by 
 grace received, to keep the commandments of God, 
 but doth daily break them. See Conf. ch. ix. sec. 3, 
 Larger Cat. Ans. to Q. 149 and proof texts. 
 
 2. Dr. B. teaches that the sinner is able to do what 
 God commanded — that the Holy Spirit in the day of 
 his power makes him willing, and so long as he is able 
 and willing, there can be no sin — Sermon Dep. and 
 Free Ag. compare p. 11 and 19. 
 
 3. The perfectionists have founded on Dr. B's, 
 theory the following pinching arguments: 
 
 'Who does not know that theology as renovated and 
 redeemed from the contradictions and absurdities of 
 former ages by such spirits as Beecher, Taylor, and 
 their associates, forms the stepping-stone to perfec- 
 tion? Who, that can draw an obvious conclusion 
 
ftom established premises, but must see, at a glance, 
 that christian perfection, substantially as we hold it, is 
 the legitimate product of New England divinity? — 
 We have been taught in their schools that sin lies 
 wholly in the will, and that man as a free agent pos- 
 sesses adequate ability independent of gracious aid 
 to render perfect obedience to the moral law; in 
 other woidb, to be a perfectionist. They have estab- 
 lished the theory that, by virtue of a fixedness of 
 purpose, man is able to stand against the wiles of the 
 Devil, and fully to answer the end of his being. — 
 Now if this system, which the opposers of the New 
 School men were not able to gainsay, teaching inan's 
 ability, independent of gracious aid, to be perfect, to 
 answer fully the end lor which his Maker created him 
 
 if this be orthodoxy, I ask, is it heresy to affirm that 
 
 by virtue of aid from a risen Savior, superadded to 
 free moral agency, the thing is doxe? 1 see 'no 
 point of rest' for the advocates of the New Divinity 
 short of the doctrine of perfection. If they will not 
 advance they must go back and adopt the inability 
 system of- thuir opponents, which they have so often 
 and so ably demonstrated to be the climax of absur- 
 dity and folly.' See letter to Theodore D. Weld, 
 member of Lane Theological Seminary, published in 
 'The Perfectionist,' Vol. i, No. 1, August 20, 1834, 
 by Whitmore & Buckingham, New Haven, Connec- 
 ticut. 
 
 IV. I charge Dr. B. with the sin of slander, viz. 
 
 1st. Spocilicalion. In belying the whole church 
 of God. 
 
 The Doctor's statements are these: 'There is no 
 position which unites more universally and entirely 
 the suffrages of the whole human race than the neces- 
 sity of a capacity for obedience, to the existence of 
 obligation and desert of |nmisliment.' Ayain 'The 
 doctrine of man\i free agency anil natural ability as 
 the ground of obligation and guilt — has been the re- 
 ceived doctrine of the orthodox cluuch in all ages. — 
 Sermon Dep. and F. Agency, p. W and 23. 
 
 2d. Specification. In attempting to bring odium 
 upon all who sincerely receive the standards of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and to cast all tiie Reformers 
 previous to the time of Edward, into the time of ig- 
 norance and contempt. 
 
 Dr. Beedher says — 'Doubtless the balance of the 
 impression always made by their language (language 
 of the Reformers) has been that of natural impotency, 
 and in modern days, there may be those who have 
 not understood tjie language of the Reformi;r?, or of 
 the Bible, on this subject; and who verily believe that 
 both teach that man has no ability, of any kind or de- 
 gree, to do any tiling that is spiritually good, and that 
 the light of God to command and to punish, survive 
 the wreck and extinction in his subjects of the ele- 
 ments of accountability. Of such, if there be such 
 in the church, wc have only to say, that when for the 
 lime they ought to be teachers, they have need that 
 some one should teach them which bo the first prin- 
 ciples of the oracles of God.' Scrm. Dop. and F. A. 
 p. 27. Again: 
 
 'It must be admitted that from the primitive age 
 down to the time of Edwards, no one saw this sub- 
 ject with clearness or traced it with uniform precision 
 and consistency. His appears to have been the mind 
 that fir.st rose above tlie mists whicli long hung over 
 the subject.' p. 27. Again : 
 
 'So far as the Calvinistic systcm^as expounded by 
 Edwards and the disciples of his school, prevailed, re- 
 
 vivals prevailed, and heresy was kept back — and most 
 notoriously it was 'dead orthodoxy,' opened the dikes 
 and let in the flood 'of Arminian and Unitarian here- 
 sy.' By attending to the whole passage, page 33, 
 same sermon, the presbytery will see that 'dead or- 
 thodoxy,' as the Dr. calls it, was the doctrine of man's 
 natural impotency to obey the Gospel.' p. 31. The 
 Dr. attempts to make us believe that from the time of 
 Edwards, the theory of this sermon has been and now 
 is the received doctrine of the ministers and churches 
 of New England. The truth of this I am not prepar- 
 ed to admit, bad as I think of the New England the- 
 ologians, in general; but I am not prepared to deny it. 
 Be it so, the matter is so much the worse. Again, the 
 Dr. proceeds, in his strain of calumny — 'For the greater 
 portion of the revivals of our land, it is well known, 
 have come to pass, under the auspices of Calvinism, 
 as modified by Edwards and the disciples of his 
 school, and under the inculcation of ability and obli- 
 gation, and urgent exhortations of immediate repen- 
 tance and submission to God; while those congrega- 
 tions and regions over which natural impotency and 
 dependence, and the impenitent use of means, and 
 waiting God's time, have disclosed their tendencies, 
 have remained like Egypt, dark beside the land of 
 Goshen, and like the mountain of Gilboa on which 
 there was no man, nor fields of offering, and like the 
 valley of visions dry, very dry.' p. 34. 
 
 And to complete the climax, the Dr. adds: 'No 
 other obstruction to the success of the Gospel is there 
 so great, as the possession of the public mind with the 
 belief of the natural and absolute inability of uncon- 
 verted men. It has done more, I verily believe, to 
 wrap iu sackcloth the sun of righteousness, and per- 
 petuate the shadow of death on those who might havo 
 been rejoicing in his light, than all beside. I cannot 
 anticipate a greater calamity to the church, than would 
 follow its universal inculcalion and adoption. And 
 most blessed and gloriou.^, I am confident, will be the 
 result, when her minislry, everywhere, shall rightly 
 understand and teach, and their hearers shall univer- 
 sally admit Ibo full ability of every sinner to comply 
 with the terms of salvation.'-^p. 37. 
 
 Lot the Presbytery compare all this with the history 
 of the church and the doctrine of our standards on 
 original sin, total depravity, the misery of the fall, re- 
 generation, and eft'ectuai calling, and say whether 
 there is an Arminian, or a Pelagian, or a Unitarian, 
 in the land, who will not agree with Dr. B. and admit 
 'the full ability of every sinner to comply with the 
 terms of salvation,' and unite with him in considering 
 it a calamity for the doctrines of our standards to be 
 universally adopted? 
 
 V. I charge Dr. Beecher with the crime of preach- 
 ing the same, and kindred doctrines contained in 
 these sermons, in the 2d Presbyterian church in Cin- 
 cinnati. 
 
 \L I charge Dr. Beecher with the sin of hypocri- 
 sy: I mean dissimulalion, in important religious mat- 
 ters. 
 
 1st. Specification. If Dr. Beecher has entered the 
 Presbyterian church without adopting her standards, 
 he is guilty of this sin. This I believe, because I am 
 informed lie was received as a member of the 3d Pres- 
 bytery of New York, without appearing before them; 
 because he was received by the Presbytery of Cin- 
 cinnati, without adopting our standards; and because 
 the installation service does not require their adop- 
 tion. 
 
6 
 
 . 2d Specification. — If Dr. B. has adopted our stan- 
 dards, he is guilty of this sin, because it is evident he 
 disbelieves and impugns them on important points — 
 subjects declared by himself to be of the utmost mo- 
 ment. 
 
 3d Specification. When Dr. B's. orthodoxy vfas 
 in question, I think before the Synod in the 1 st Pres- 
 byterian church, he made a popular declaration 'that 
 our confession of faith confaine'd the truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth,' or words to that a- 
 mount. I thought then, and still think, that it was 
 dissimulation for popular effect. The ciime is infer- 
 able from the circumstances of the case. If he has 
 adopted the standards of our church, as our form of 
 government requires, it is competent for him to show 
 when and where. . But the charge of hypocrisy is 
 equally sustained, in my estimation, whether he has or 
 has not. He may take which ever alternative he can 
 best defend. 
 
 4th Specification. When Dr. B. preached and 
 published his sermon on Dependence and Free agency, 
 he was just about to enter the Presbyterian church, 
 with an expectation of being pastor of the second Pres- 
 byterian church of Cincinnati, and teacher of theo- 
 logy in Lane Seminary. He either did not know the 
 doctrines of our church, or if he did know them, he 
 designed to impugn and vilify those who honestly a- 
 dopted them. 
 
 Witnesses to prove that he published the sermon 
 in view of entering the Presbyterian church: Dr. 
 Woods, of Andover, and Prof. Stuart, Prof. Biggs, 
 Robt. Boal, Jabez C. Tunis, Augustus Moore, James 
 Mcfntire, and P. Skinner. The allegation respect- 
 ing the perfectionists, if denied, can be proven by 
 their publication, from which I have made an extract. 
 Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 are sustained by Dr. B's. print- 
 ed sermons on the 'Native Character of Man ,^ and 
 on 'Dependence and F. A.' both of which are here- 
 with submitted for examination. 
 
 If Dr. B. denies being tlie author of these ser- 
 mons, published under his name, the authorship can 
 be proven by Rev. Austin Dickinson, Rev. Dr. Woods 
 of Andover, and Perkins and Marvin, of Boston, 
 Mass. The witnesses to prove the 5th charge, are 
 Augustus Moore, Jeptha D. Ganst, John Sullivan, 
 Robert Wallace, James Mclntire, P. Skinner, and 
 James Hall, Esq. 
 
 The 3d specification under charge 6th, I expect to 
 prove, if it be denied, by the members of this Pres- 
 bytery, including myself; but I will name Rev. 
 Sayres Gazley, John Burt, L. G. Gaines, Daniel Hay- 
 den, and others. 
 
 And now, brethren, you will not forget that tlie Sy- 
 nod of Cincinnati iiave enjoined it upon you to ex- 
 ercise the discipline of the cliuiclj, even upon those 
 who disturb her peace by new terms and phrases; 
 much more are yon bound 1o exercise it on those 
 who destroy her puiity by false doctrine, and vilify 
 her true ministry. 
 
 In the case of Dr. B. I send you an extract from 
 the minutes of the Synod: 'The Synod do not say 
 that there are not sufficient reasons for the Presby- 
 tery to take up a charge or charges on common fame; 
 but are fully of tlie opinion that, of that, Presbytery 
 lias full liberty to judge for themselves; and that 
 they can be compelled to take up a charge only by a 
 responsible prosecutor.' An attested copy of the de- 
 cision I herewith submit. 
 
 I feel it a solemn transaction, to accuse any one, 
 
 especially a professed minister of Jesus Christ. It 
 is sometimes a duty to do this. The obligation in 
 this case rests upon somebody, and I know of no one 
 who will discharge it but myself. I have not consult- 
 ed flesh and blood, but the intere&ts of the church of 
 Jesus Christ, before whose judgment seat we must all 
 appear. I have counted the cost; and now call upon 
 you, in presence of God, for your due deliberation 
 and decision upon every charge submitted. 
 
 With all due regard, I am your brother in the Gos- 
 pel of Christ. J. L. Wilson. 
 
 Dr. Beecher being called upon to answer^ 
 said, I am not guilty of heresy: I am not guilty 
 of slander: I am not guilty of hypocrisy or dis- 
 simulation in the respect charged. I do not say 
 that I have not taught the doctrines charged i 
 but I deny their being false doctrines. The 
 coursel shall take will be to justify. 
 
 The Moderator calling upon Dr. Beecher to 
 say what plea should be entered upon the min- 
 utes in his name, Dr. Beecher replied, the plea 
 of ' Not Guilty.' 
 
 Dr. Wilson said he supposed Dr. Beecher 
 took the proper distinction between facts and 
 crimes. He admitted the facts specified, but de- 
 nied the crimes charged. Dr. W. wished to 
 know whether the admission extended to one 
 of the facts respecting which no crime was 
 charged; but which had been stated because it 
 was closely connected and linked in with the 
 other facts of the case: viz. that Dr. B. had de- 
 clared before the Synod, that the Confession of 
 Faith of the Presbyterian Church contained the 
 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth? 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied that he should not admit 
 the fact stated in that naked form; he would 
 not admit the words quoted, without other words 
 by which they had been accompanied. 
 
 Dr. Wilson then said, that as to this point he 
 should ask leave to adduce testimony. 
 
 A commission was then granted to take the 
 testimony of Professor Biggs, who was in feeble 
 health, and unable to attend the court. 
 
 The Rev. Sayres Gasley was then duly 
 sworn and examined, and his testimony having 
 been taken down by the Clerk and read to him., 
 he approved the record as correct. It is as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 I remember the circumstance which occurred in 
 Synod to which the charge alludes. The precise 
 words contained in the specifications I do not recol- 
 lect. My impression seems clear that in speaking of 
 llie Confession of Faith, Dr. Beecher said that the 
 Confession of Faith was true, every sentence and ev- 
 ery word, and that he so believed it. 1 don't recollect 
 precisely which. 
 
 Question. What wore the circumstances under 
 which the above declaration was made? 
 
 Ans. I cannot say positively, but to the best of my 
 belief, it was in Dr. Beeclier's plea before Synod, in 
 an appeal from Dr. Wilson, because presbytery would 
 not appoint a committee to investigate his' sermon. 
 
 Dr. Wilson— Was not the declaration made, when 
 
Dr. Beecher was making a speech on that subject? — 
 Ans. That is my impression. 
 
 Ques. by Dr. W. Was there a considerable crowd 
 of spectators around the Synod at that time? — Ans. I 
 do not recollect. 
 
 Dr. W. Was there not considerable excitement 
 during the discussion of that subject? — Ans. There 
 was. 
 
 Rankin. Was there any thing in the Dr's. manner 
 which induced you to believe that it was done for 
 popular effect? — Ans. I have no distinct recollection 
 at present of noticing his manner, but from all the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, I was led to that opinion. 
 
 Rankin. What werethe circumstances of the case? 
 — Ans. The published sentiments of Dr. B. and the 
 place where it was uttered. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. W^as not Dr. B. at that time making 
 an effort to prevent synod from sustaining my com- 
 plaint? — Ans. That is my impression now, but I can- 
 not say positively. [Read to witness and approved.] 
 
 The Presbjtery then adjourned till to-mor- 
 row. 
 
 Wednesday morning. — Presbjtery met and was 
 opened with prayer. 
 
 The Rev. A.S.Morrison, from the commission 
 appointed to take the testimony of Professor 
 Biggs, made the following report: 
 
 Walnut Hills, June 10, 1835. 
 
 Meeting opened with prayer. 
 
 Dr. Wilson wisliod Mr. Biggs to state -vliat he knew 
 on the subject — whether any perfectionists wore in 
 attcnilance at Lane Seminary the last year. — Ans. — 
 As young men whose minds were made up on that 
 subject, I do not know that there were any. 
 
 Dr. W. Were there not students in Lane Semina- 
 ry who were making inquiries and manifesting tenden- 
 cies that way. — Ans. 1 am under the impression that 
 there were some. 
 
 Dr. W. From what sections of country, did those 
 young men come? — Ans. From the state of New 
 York. I think, I had but two or three at all in my mind, 
 of whom I had any suspicion. 
 
 Dr. W. What information did Prof. Biggs give me 
 on this subject in a conversation we had at Hamilton? 
 Ans. That Dr. Beecher so far from countenancing 
 the doctrine of perfectionism, warned his students 
 against such sentiments. 
 
 Dr. AV. Were not the statements you made to me 
 calculated to impress my mind with the belief that the 
 students who manifested such tendencies to perfec- 
 tionism, were led to place themselves under Dr. B.'s 
 instruction, inconsequence of his published views of 
 theology? — Ans. I have no recollection that they 
 were. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. Did you ever hear any one of the stu- 
 dents at any time, avow the doctrine of perfection? — 
 Ans. I never did. 
 
 Dr. B. Had you any evidence of tendency to that 
 doctrine further than what results from questions com- 
 mon to inquiring minds, in the investigationof a sub- 
 ject, with reference to the formation of an opinion? — 
 Ans. I believe their inquiries were all directed with 
 a view to the formation of an ultimate opinion. 
 
 Dr. B. Were you apprized of the fact, that one of 
 my lectures was on tlie subject of Christian Character, 
 and in opposition to the doctrine ofperfection?— Ans. 
 J so understood. 
 Dr. Wilson. Did you cite T. D. Weld to appear 
 
 before presbytery as a witness in this case? — Ans. I 
 did not, for the following reasons: 
 
 1. I understood that the citations of all witnesses, 
 except the members of the presbytery, was dispensed 
 with by agreement of the parlies. 
 
 2. The same was understood by several of the 
 brethren of the presbytery with whom I conversed on 
 the subject, after the meeting of presbytery, for the 
 purpose of being myself cenified of the fact. 
 
 To which Therewith affix my signature, 
 
 Tll. [. BlGGS. 
 
 The following witnesses were then duly sworn 
 and their testimony recorded as follows: 
 
 Francis Moi^ori's testimony. 
 
 I recollect very well that Dr. B. said, I believe the 
 Con. of Faith contains the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth, after having shown that he re- 
 ceived the Con. of Faith as a system. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. Where and under what circumstances 
 was the declaration made? — Ans. It was in the 1st 
 Church, in Synod, on the complaint of Dr. Wilson and 
 others against Presbytery for not appointing a com- 
 mittee to examine certain sermons of Dr. B. 
 
 Dr. W. What wore the circumstances? — Ans. The 
 Doctor was giving his last address, the house was full; 
 there was considerable excitement. 
 
 Dr. W. When the same subject was before Pres- 
 bytery, did not Dr. B. express his approbation of ihe 
 standards of the church wiih the reservation of putting 
 upon them his iiilcrpratation? — Ans. So 1 under- 
 stood it. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. Was the statement made before 
 Synod attended by an explanation or qualification? — 
 Ans. I heard none. 
 
 Dr. B. Did i profess before the Synod a belief in 
 the Con. of Faith according to any other interpreta- 
 tion, than the one I put upon it? — Ans. I heard noth- 
 ing said about interpretation. (Read, &.C.) 
 Mr. Aton-^ testimony. 
 
 I recollect, distinctly, Uiat in the time and place- 
 specified in the charges — 
 
 (Dr. Beecher admits that the time, place and audi- 
 ence were as described by the preceding witness.) 
 
 Witness resumed. Dr. B. said he believed the Con. 
 of F. contained the truth,the whole truth, and noth- 
 ing but the truth. I heard no qualifications. (Read,. 
 &c.) 
 
 Mr. Gaines'* testimony. 
 I recollect very little distinctly. I recollect Dr. R. 
 uttered the words mentioned by Mr. Aton, and 
 made a gesture more violent than usual; cannot 
 recollect whether it was before Presbytery or Svnod. 
 (Read,&c.) '. ' < 
 
 Mr. Burt'^s testimony, 
 I agree with the witnesses in respect to the time, 
 place and circumstances, so far as I have heard. I 
 distinctly recollect that the Dr. in the course of his 
 speech, stated that the Con. of F. -contained the truth, 
 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Not ex- 
 pecting to be called upon, 1 have not treasured up a 
 recollection of the circumstances, whether there were 
 any qualifications or not. (Read, &,c.) 
 
 D. Hayden's testimony. 
 
 1 heard Dr. B. say that he believed the Con. of F. 
 to contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
 the truth. I remember no qualifying statements, i 
 
8 
 
 think 1 should have remembered such-qualifications, 
 had they been made. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. What was the declaration in Presby- 
 tery on ihe same subject? — Ans. I do not recollect. 
 (Read, &c.) 
 
 JP. A. Kemper's testimony. 
 
 I was a member of Synod in 1833. Dr. B. said he 
 believed the Con. of F. contained the truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth. He made no ex- 
 planation at the lime. When Dr. Wilson was reply- 
 ing, Dr. B. got up and made explanations-. 
 
 Dr. W. Was you a member of Presbytery at the 
 time the same subject was up there? — Ans. I think I 
 was. ^ 
 
 Dr. W. What were Dr. B.'s declaraiions as to his 
 reception of the Con. of F. there? — Ans. That he 
 adopted it as a system; the Dr. called no man father 
 on earth, nor allowed any man to explain the Bible or 
 Con. of F. to him. 
 
 Mr. Gaines. Had the explanations reference to 
 the words, or something else? — Ans. To the words 
 only. . 
 
 Dr. Beecher. What were the explanations? — Ans. 
 I do not recollect. (Read, &c.) 
 
 Judge Jacob Burnet'' s testimony. 
 
 Called in by Dr. Beecher — 
 
 I was present at the time referred to by the other 
 witnesses. I heard Dr. B.'s address to the Synod. — 
 1 recollect distinctly that in that part of his address in 
 ■which he spoke of the Con. of F. he said that there 
 had been a time when he could not subscribe to the 
 whole of it; but mature deliberation and ascertaining 
 to his own satisfaction what was the meaning attach- 
 ed to the terms when the Con. of F. was written, the 
 difficulty was entirely removed. He added, that he 
 jiow believed the Con. of F. contained the truth, and 
 Irthought he said the whole truth. He raised his hands 
 to bis bosom, and, said he believed it to be one of the 
 best expositions of the meaning of the Scripture. 1 
 cannot give his words precisely. (Read, &c.) 
 
 A. Duncan's testimony. 
 
 Dr. B. How long have you been a member of Lane 
 Seminary? — Ans. Two years and a half. 
 
 Dr. B. How long a member of the Theological 
 Class? — Ans. About a year and a half. 
 
 Dr. B. Have you heard the testimony of Mr. Weed, 
 and do your views correspond with his? — Ans. Yes; 
 except that my recollection of the discussion is not 
 as distinct as his. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. Did you see the letter addressed to 
 T. D. Weld, in the Perfectionist? — Ans. 1 saw it in 
 Delhi, two miles from this city. 
 
 Dr. W. Who wrote that letter? — Ans. I do not 
 distinctly recollect his name; I think it was Dut- 
 ton. 
 
 Dr. W. What was the general character and stand- 
 ing of Mr. Dutton? — Ans. I know nothing about 
 him, except that he was once studying theology with 
 Mr. Kirk, of Albany. I have heard his intellect spo- 
 ken of as one of great value. 
 
 Dr. W. On what occasion and in what manner did 
 Dr. B. warn the students against the perfectionists? — 
 Ans. I recollect no such warnings. I never heard 
 of them, until I saw the letter in the Perfectionist at 
 Delhi. I heard the lecture mentioned by Mr. Weed. 
 
 George Beecher. Did you see the written or print- 
 ed copy of the letter? — Ans. The printed. 
 
 Mr. Rankin. Do you know why he left Mr. Kirk? 
 — Ans. No. 
 
 Mr. R; Was the perfectionist's letter addressed to 
 Mr. Weld, on Ibo supposition that he was a perfec- 
 tionist? — Ans. No. It contained a labored argu- 
 ment to show him the truth of those doctrines. 
 
 Mr. Graves. Did you overhear that Dr. Beecher was 
 suspected of perfectionism? — Ans. Never, until I 
 heard these charges. (Read, &c.) 
 
 Mr. Little's testimony. 
 
 Dr. B. What are your recollections of my language 
 before Synod? — Ans. I concur with Judge Burnet 
 and Mr. Woodbury, except I heard this expression a 
 little stronger than their language: 'Dr. B. said the 
 Confession of Faith and Catechism were the best com- 
 pendium of the doctrine of the Bible he had 
 seen.'— (Read, &c.) 
 
 Mr. Brainerd''s Testimony. 
 
 I have seen the paper called the Perfectionist, and 
 read it carefully. I have seen also many other ex- 
 tracts from the Perfectionist. They have three 
 ways of becoming perfect. The first is, they be- 
 lieve themselves able to obey God and do so. When 
 pushed with difliuclties in that view of the subject, 
 they represent themselves as being, by the literal im- 
 putation of the righteousness of Christ to them, 
 so that God looks upon them as one with Christ, 
 and does not regard their sins as sins. Again, they re- 
 present sometimes their perfection to be the result of 
 the special grace of God; they say that God hears 
 and answers all right prayer, that their perfection is a 
 grace received in answer to their prayers. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. la not the whole theory of the per- 
 fectionists built upon the hypothesis of the natural 
 ability of man to do all that God requires, and that 
 sin lies wholly in the will — Ans. No: with those that 
 believe in natural ability and moral inability, they 
 reason according to the sentiment of the question; 
 with others, that deny this doctrine, they reason upon 
 a different assumption. 
 
 Dr. W. With what difficulties are those pressed 
 who hold to the ability of man to do what God re- 
 quires and say they do it — Ans. 1 will not pretend 
 to state all. The fact is shown from their own con- 
 duct, that they do violate the laws of God; those pas* 
 sages of scripture are opposed to them, which state 
 that Christians, though not constrained by natural ne- 
 cessity do sin. 
 Dr. W. What practices of the Perfectionists contra- 
 dict their theory and profession, and how do you know 
 that they are guilty of those practices? — Ans. They 
 appear to fall into the same sins as other men, and I 
 learn the fact that they thus sin, 1st. by the Bible,which 
 teacheth that no man liveth and sinneth not, and 2d. 
 by the standards of their opponents brought out in 
 the publications of the day. 
 
 Dr. W. Are you personally and intimately acquaint- 
 ed with any persons of that denomination? — Ans. I 
 never saw one. 
 
 Dr. W. What do they mean by the literal imputa- 
 tions of the righteousness of Christ? — Ans. They 
 seem to mean, that they are so united to Christ, that 
 all his obedience becomes theirs in such a sense, as 
 to release them from criminality although they violate 
 the law of God. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. Do those Calvinists who teach the 
 doctrine of the literal imputation of Christ's righte- 
 ousness to believers, deny the doctrine of man's nat- 
 
9 
 
 ural ability?— Ans. In speculation they do; in prac- was ready to admit that the sermons (and lie had 
 
 tice 1 believe most of them assume it to be true. read them attentively, many times,) did contain 
 
 Mr. Gasley. Did not the system originate with rnany things that were excellent: but the ground 
 
 those who held the doctrine of natural ability?— Ans. ^f j^jg charge was that the author had placed In 
 
 From the region where it originated, I should think ^i^^ ^^^^ midst of them the most deleterious poi- 
 
 it probable; but I have no certain knowledge. g^j,_ Were Dr. W. invited to partake of a dish 
 
 Mr. Ratikin. Does not their system teach that - 
 
 nature an aversion to God, which has been called clenly come to a depo 
 
 inability, which makes regeneration necessary. slop, and eat no more, unless he could with cer- 
 
 Mr. Alton. What do those Calvioists mean who tainly pass over that portion of the preparation 
 
 teach the literal imputation of Christ's righteousness? and complete his meal with what was not poison- 
 
 Ans. There is a class of professed Calvinists who ed. Let the whole be read: the court, he was 
 
 seem to teach the doctrine of imputation, the same ^rgH assured, would be able to separate the pre- 
 
 doctrine as the perfectionists'; but this I would not cious from the vile. 
 
 apply to any of those who hold and teach the doctrine 
 of imputation in the sense of our Confession of Faith. 
 (Read, &,c.) 
 
 The oral testimony having now been complet- 
 ed, 
 
 Dr. Beecher said it was his right to have 
 the documents referred to in the charges read 
 entire. 
 
 The MoDER.vTOR admitted this: but express- 
 ed a doubt whether the present was the proper 
 
 The first charge was read a second time, and stage in the proceedings at which this right 
 as it referred to certain passages in Dr. Beech- might be exercised. In his defence Dr. B. 
 er's sermons, the clerk was about to read the might very properly give the whole sermon in ar, 
 passages cited; when 
 
 Mr. Rankin moved that the entire sermon, 
 and not extracts only, be read. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, that if the whole sermon 
 was to be read because a part of it was referred 
 to in the charges, the whole Confession of Faith 
 might as well bercad, for certain'parts of it were 
 also cited. 
 
 Professor Biggs could not consent that mere- 
 ly isolated passages should he read ; he should 
 be mcst unwilling tohave his own character tried 
 by garbled extracts selected from his wrilint;^ ; 
 he could in that manner prove every man in the 
 Presbytery a heretic. Let the connexion of tlie 
 passages with their context be seen; let their 
 bearing be understood; let the presbytery re- 
 ceive the same impression as the audience had 
 received, before whom the sermons were deliv- 
 ered; and as to the objection which had been 
 
 urged, if it was necessary for consistency's sake 
 to read the whole Confession of Faith, let it be 
 read. 
 
 Mr. Rankin said there was an obvious diCfer- 
 ence between the reading of the Confession and 
 the reading of the sermon. The Confession of 
 Faith was not introduced before the court as ev- 
 idence; the sermon had been: nor could the 
 court have any just and adequate conception of 
 what the passages cited conveyed, unless they 
 listened to the whole and understood theconnex- 
 
 gument, to show that the charge was not well 
 founded. 
 
 Dr. Beecher still insisted on having the 
 whole read. If Dr. W. wished to verify the ex- 
 tracts he had made. Dr. B. was ready to admit 
 their accuracy: at Icait, he took it for granted the 
 passages had been copied correctly. But it 
 was certainly the fair and correct mode of pre- 
 reeding to allow the body of the sermon, as de- 
 livered, to make its own impression, and then the 
 force of the passages excepted to could be bet- 
 ter judged of. In no Well constructed sermon 
 could a single pnss.igc give the effect of the 
 wiiole. A sermon was heretical, or otherwise 
 according to the combined and intended results 
 of all its parts taken together. In every prop- 
 erly written sermon, the combined effect was the 
 end aim?d at, and all the parts were so arrang- 
 ed and so made to follosv each other, as best to 
 secure that end. Let the sermon tell its own 
 story: and then the court might make what an- 
 alysis of it they might deem proper. 
 
 The sermons on the Native Character of Man 
 in the National Preacher, Vol. II. No. 1. for 
 June, 1827, were thereupon read. 
 
 The second, third and fourth charges were 
 read: and then the sermon to which they refer- 
 red, viz: 'Dependence and Free Agency,' a ser- 
 nion delivered in Andover Theological Seminary, 
 
 ion. Besides, in one part of tiie charge the ser- July IG, L'So'_. 
 mens at large were cited, without any particular Dr. Wilson stated that he wished to lay be- 
 
 passages being specified. fore the Presbytery, certain information show- 
 
 Dr. Wilson admitted, on reflection, that the ing on what grounds he had been induced to 
 
 cases of the Confession and the Sermon were not state that the Perfectionists claimed Dr. B. as 
 
 analogous. He had no objection to the reading strengthening their hypothesis. 
 of the sermons entire; it could do no harm; but The Moderator inquired whether Dr. W. 
 
 he wished the court to bcarin mind that there wished to introduce this information as testimo- 
 
 was such a thing as insinuating the most deadly ny in support of any one of the charges he had 
 
 poison into the most wholesome aliment. He peferred? 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 He replied that he did not: It was a letter 
 from an individual who was not and could not be 
 present, and whose testimony had not been for- 
 mally taken. 
 
 After a discussion, the letter to which Dr. W. 
 referred was permitted to be read. It wasa let- 
 ter contained in a newspaper published at New 
 Haven, entitled ' Tiie Perfectionist,' and ad- 
 dressed to Theodore Weld, late a student in 
 Lane Seminary. 
 
 The letter being very long, and appearing to 
 be on a subject wholly unconnected with the 
 matter in hand, it was moved that the reading 
 be arrested: and that only so much be read as 
 Dr. W. had referred to. 
 
 The Moderator decided, that if any part of 
 the paper was read the whole must be. 
 
 Mr. Rankin inquired what was the signature 
 of the letter. 
 
 The Clerk stated that it had no signature: 
 whereupon on motion of Mr. Burnet, seconded 
 by Prof. Biggs, the paper was rejected as being 
 no testimony. 
 
 Dr. WiitgON gave notice that he took excep- 
 tion to this decision ; in order that he might avail 
 himself of such exception, should the case go up 
 to Synod. And also, that he should avail him- 
 self of the testimony introduced by Dr. Beecher 
 before the last meeting of Presbytery, viz: his 
 own sermon with a review of the same by Dr. 
 Green. 
 
 The examination of testimony being resumed. 
 
 Dr. Wilson stated that he had no farther tes- 
 timony on the part of the charge. 
 
 Silas Woodbury was examined, and his tes- 
 timony is as follows: 
 
 I was present in the Synod, when Dr. B. gave liis 
 statement: and facts are substantially as given by 
 Judge Burnet, according to the best of my recollec- 
 tion. 
 
 The testimony being now closed, it was mov- 
 ed that the parlies be heard. 
 
 Dr. Wilson stated that he was much exhaus- 
 ted and requested an adjournment. 
 
 Dr. Beecher gave notice that he might have 
 occasion to introduce farther testimony, should 
 he be able to procure it, before proceeding to 
 the defence- 
 Presbytery then took up other business before 
 them, and which occupied the judicatory until 
 the hour of adjournment. 
 
 Presbytery then adjourned. 
 
 Thursday morning.- — Presbytery met and was 
 opened with prayer. 
 
 Farther testimony was introduced on the part 
 of Dr Beecher. 
 
 Dr Wilson said that he wished to apprise the 
 presbytery of a difficulty which must arise from 
 their having rejected the information he had 
 been desirous of laying before them, and which 
 v,a= contained in a letter not permitted to be 
 read. If the present trial should not terminate 
 according to the views of the prosecutor, and the 
 case should go up to synod, it would be necessary 
 
 for him to obtain from synod an attested copy of 
 their decision in the case; which would beat- 
 tended with great delay. But if this letter 
 should now be received, the delay and inconve- 
 nience would be avoided. It would be remem- 
 bered that there was an express rule, which 
 admits the offering of new testimony before 
 a superior court in cases of appeal, where the 
 court should deem such testimony requisite to 
 a right decision. 
 
 Mr. Brainerd observed there need be no 
 difficulty as Dr. W. could get from the synod 
 all he had need of. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said that the writer of the letter 
 was the Rev. Dr. Phillips, of New York; and that 
 he should have cited him as a witness upon the 
 present trial, if he had not understood that the 
 citation of all witness save the members of the 
 court, was by agreement waived. 
 
 Mr. Brainerd said, that nothing of this 
 sort had been stated before the presbytery. 
 
 Dr. Wilson then observed, that as there ap- 
 peared to be some mistake as to the extent of 
 Dr. Beecher's concessions, he wanted to know 
 whether the 4th specification of the sixth charge 
 was conceded, or not — which is in the following 
 words: [see it above.] 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied that all was conceded 
 which was contained in the sermon referred to. 
 Dr. Wilson then inquired, if the fact in that 
 specification was not conceded, whether he had 
 not a right to the testimony which he had cited 
 to support it; and whether the cause must not 
 be suspended till such testimony was obtained. 
 He was resolved to have that testimony before 
 he proceeded any farther. 
 
 Dr. Beecher wished to know, whether sup- 
 posing that specification to be proved. Dr. Wil- 
 son meant to avail himself of it with a view to 
 show that the sermon in question had been writ- 
 ten and shaped in reference to Dr. B.'s coming 
 into the Presbyterian church. The date of the 
 sermon would speak for itself, without any con- 
 cession. If Dr. W. wanted to know, whether 
 the sermon was printed, at the time Dr. B. was 
 about coming into the Presbyterian church, there 
 was no secret about the matter. But if he 
 wanted it to be conceded that the sermon was 
 either prepared or published with reference to 
 Dr. B.'s coming to this place and being the 
 President of Lane Seminary, that would not be 
 conceded. Dr. W. might argue from the date 
 of the sermon in any way he pleased. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, all he wanted was the fact, 
 that he might use it in argument. If Dr. B. 
 conceded the fact. Dr. W. would have the right 
 to draw such inference from it as he might deem 
 proper. 
 
 Dr. Beecher: You may draw it. As to the 
 fact, it is conceded. 
 
 The concession was, by Dr. Wilson's desire, 
 put upon record. 
 
 Dr. Beecher now called for the testimony of 
 Edward Weed. 
 
11 
 
 Dr. Wilson inquired, whether Mr. Weed was 
 a member of the church. 
 
 The Moderator replied, that he was an elder 
 of the 4th church in Cincinnati; and a candi- 
 date under the care of the Chillicothe presby- 
 tery. 
 
 Mr. Weed wa? thereupon duly sworn; and 
 liis testimony being taken, was as follows: 
 
 Dr. Beecher. How long was you a member of ihe 
 Lane Seminary? — Ans. Two years and a half. 
 
 Dr. B. How long a member of the Theological 
 Class? — Ans. One year. 
 
 Dr. B. Was Ihere, during your continuance in the 
 Seminary, to your knowledge, any member who was 
 a perfectionist? — Ans. I knew of none. 
 
 Dr. B. Was there any whom you regarded as tend- 
 ing to that opinion? — Ans. None. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. Did you, while a member of that 
 Seminary, see a letter addressed to T. D. Weld, in the 
 Perfectionist? — Ans. I saw it in tiie city. (Weed 
 resided on Walnut Hills, at the Seminary.) 
 
 Dr. W. Who was tha writer of that letter? — Ans. 
 I cannot say. 
 
 Dr. W. Do you know why Dr. B. warned the 
 students against perfectionism, and delivered a set 
 lecture on that subject? — Ans. 1 think I know. I 
 think that in one of the lectures of Dr. Bencher, the 
 discussion came up, whether an individual could at the 
 same time be under the exerciTO of religious feeling, 
 and commit sin. 
 
 Dr. W. What arguments were advanced by some 
 of the students in favor of the doctrine, that while 
 under religious feeling, christians cannot commit sin? 
 Ans. The discussion was simply in tlie form of ques- 
 tions and answers, and it was argued on the part of 
 the students, in this discussion, that an individual's 
 feelings were at the same time entirely holy, or entirely 
 sinful. 
 
 Dr. B. Did every student profess to e.xpress his 
 own opinion on those subjects? — Ans. No. They 
 simply argued on that side of the question in order to 
 elicit Dr. Beecher's opinion. 
 
 Dr. B. Was it in immediate connexion wiUi this 
 discussion (perhaps at the next lecture) that I gave a 
 regular discussion of this subject? — Ans. I think It 
 was die next lecture — he explained the 7th chapter 
 of Romans to the class. 
 
 Dr. B. Was it In opposition to the views of the 
 Perfectionists? — Ans. It was in opposition (o the 
 theory that the christian's feelings are entirely holy or 
 entirely sinful. It had no special reference to the 
 Perfectionists. 
 
 Dr. B. Did any student express it as his opinion, 
 in any other form than to elicit opinions from me? — 
 Ans. No, not In the discussion. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. Did every student express it as his 
 opinion, In any other place, In their intercourse with 
 iheir fellow-students? Ans. There were many 
 ' students, who expressed their opinion that each moral 
 feeling is entirely holy or entirely sinful, but not an 
 individual who believed In the doctrine of the Perfec- 
 tionists. 
 
 Dr. B. Were there any of the students who be- 
 lieved that any person in this life attained to that state 
 where they had only holy aflTectioas and none sinful? 
 Ans. Not an individual; they all discarded it. 
 
 Dr. B. Did their sense of iheir own depravity cor- 
 respond with thai of oth^r Cliristians In their con- 
 
 versation and confessions of sin in praver? — Ans. 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. Bralnerd. Did you ever hear that Dr. Beecher 
 wai suspected of perfectionism, until you heard it 
 from Dr. Wilson's charges? — Ans. I never heard of 
 it until yesterday, that Dr. Beecher was charged or 
 suspected of perfectionism. (Read, &c.) 
 
 Dr. Wilson then addressed the court as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Moderator — The important and blessed ends 
 of church government and discipline can only be 
 attained by a wise and faithful administration. 
 In the hand cf church officers, the Lord Jesus 
 Christ has placed the government of his king- 
 dom on earth; and 1 can conceive of no station 
 more responsible than that occupied by those 
 officers to whom are committed the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven ; to open that kingdom to the 
 penitent; to shut it against the impenitent; to 
 vindicate the truth and the honor of Christ; to 
 purge out that unholy leaven of error which 
 might infect the whole lump; to deter men from 
 the commission of offences; and prevent the 
 wrath of God from falling on the church.* 
 
 It belongs to the officers of the kingdom of 
 our l^ord, when solemnly convened as a court of 
 Christ ministerially and authoritatively to deter- 
 mine not only cases of conscience and matters 
 of practice, but to decitlc controversies of faith; 
 and their decision^:, if consonant to the word of 
 God, are to be received with reverence and sub- 
 mission.! 
 
 Of all the subjects brought before a church 
 court for adjudication, nom,- are so important as 
 controversies of faith, and none so difficult to 
 determine. None so important; because truth 
 is essential to purity, peace and goodness; and 
 no crime, of a pardonable nature, is so great as 
 that of corrupting the word of God, so as to 
 preach another gospel: no adjudications are 
 more difficult, because under the appearance of 
 piety, zeal and liberality — by popular talent 
 and the arts of persuasion — by the concealing 
 of the poison of asps under the pure milk and 
 meat of some salutary truths — and by an appeal 
 to numbers, and wealth, and success — false 
 teachers, If it were possible, would deceive the 
 very elect.]: The whole history of the church 
 proves that no crime ever committed has been 
 so complicated, so hard to be detected, so diffi- 
 cult of eradication, so hurtful to the church, so 
 ruinous to the world, as the preaching of another 
 gospel. And, sir, no class of men has ever pos- 
 sessed more talent, manifested more zeal, exhi- 
 bited more perseverance, or exertedgreater nu- 
 merical and pecuniary power, and gained a 
 more elevated popular applause, than some false 
 teachers. And this we have reason to believe 
 will continue to be the case till 'Ihe day of the 
 Lord Cometh that shall burn as an oven;' till 
 'the sons of Levi shall be purified,' 'the sanctu- 
 
 •Confession of Faill),ch. xxx. p. 12'i. 
 \ Maltheiv xxiv. •-}■!, 
 
 t Ibid. p. 133. 
 
12 
 
 ary of God cleansed,' and 'the kingdom and 
 the greatness of the kingdom under the whole 
 heaven shall be given to the people of the saints 
 of the Most High.' Were it necessary, before 
 an enlightened court of Christ, to support these 
 statements by proof and illustration, 1 might cite 
 you to the state of the church in the time of Jero- 
 boam, in the days of Ahab, and the period which 
 elapsed between the reign of Josiah and the 
 eleventh yea^ of Zedekiah. I might remind you 
 of those who compassed sea and land to make a 
 proselyte in the time of Christ; of those who 
 called the apostles and elders from their fields of 
 labor to determine a controversy about doctrine, 
 commended at Antioch and adjudicated at Jeru- 
 salem. I might tell the long and melancholy 
 stories of Arius, Pelagius, Socinus, and Arminius: 
 I might speak of the powerful but perverted 
 talents of the great Erasmus, and notice the daz- 
 zling splendor of Edward Irving: I might name 
 men in our own times, in our own church, whose 
 eloquence and popularity have deluded thousands 
 and turned them aside from the truth and sim- 
 plicity of the gospel. But I forbear; and only 
 add that the case before you is a case precisely 
 in point. You are called upon to determine a 
 controversy about doctrines; doctrines intimately 
 connected with practice; doctrines of vital in- 
 terest to the church of Christ: doctrines which 
 are parts of a system wholly subversive of the 
 gospel of God: doctrines which have been prop- 
 agated by a zeal and talent worthy of a better 
 cause: and the propagation of which has deeply 
 convulsed and shaken info disunion the Presby- 
 terian church in the United States, from the 
 Atlantic to the Missouri, and from the Lakes to 
 the Gulf of Mexico. 
 
 And now, Sir, permit me to remind you, while 
 sitting as a Court of Jesus Christ, that there are 
 several things which stand as prominent obstacles 
 in the way of a just derision; and these 1 must 
 be permitted to remove, before it will be possible 
 for you to make a decision in accordance with 
 the standards of the church; 
 
 And 1st, the character of the accuser in this 
 prosecution stands as one, and the first obstacle 
 in the way of a correct decision. The accuser, 
 in this prosecution, is considered b^' many as a 
 litigious, ultra partizan in the Presbyterian 
 church. In attempting to wipe away this odium, 
 he puts in no plea of personal merit. He feels 
 himself to be a man of like passions with other?; 
 and when he has felt deeply, his language has 
 been plain, and has strongly expressed the feel- 
 ings of his heart. Whatever may have been 
 the opinions formed of his merit or demerit, these 
 opinions ought to have no place in the trial. 
 Yet your records contain matter going to show 
 that documents had been received by the court 
 which were intended to prove the ecclesiastical 
 incompetency of the prosecutor. Whether those 
 documents have been placed upon yoiir files; 
 whether they are anonymous,or over responsible 
 names: whether they are so placed that they will 
 
 be come-at-able in case of need; are matters not 
 for me to decide. The very record itself, in 
 respect to these papers, is so equivocal in its 
 terms that no future historian will, from inspec- 
 ting it, be able to tell whether the charges have 
 been taken up by presbytery on the ground that 
 the accuser is competent, or from mere courtesy 
 to the feelings of the accused. The, supposition 
 that the admission of the chargeshas been purely 
 gratuitous, and that they have been acted upon 
 out of mere courtesy to the accused, places an 
 obstacle in the course of justice,. How far it 
 will be permitted to operate I pretend not to say: 
 but I do believe that that will be the impression 
 produced, because I know something of impres- 
 sions made upon the human mind. I feel per- 
 suaded that neither rashness nor unkindness has 
 appeared either in the charges themselves, or in 
 the manner of conducting them. Whatever may 
 have been my youthful indiscretions; or what- 
 ever may have been the spirit I have manifested 
 when again and again placed atyour bar, I think 
 I may appeal to you, sir, and to every member 
 of this court, to say, whether in the course of the 
 present trial thus far, it has not been conducted 
 on my part with that temper and in that manner 
 which becomes one standing in the important 
 station which 1 occupy? 1 have manifested no 
 impatience under much needless delay; I have 
 treated the court with due deference, and the 
 man whose theological sentiments I cannot ap- 
 prove, with uniform respect and courtesy. I 
 feel confident, therefore, that when the subject 
 shall be viewed in all its parts, the obstacle 
 which arises from the character of the accuser, 
 will be removed, and you will approach the de- 
 cision of the cause, in that respect at least, with 
 an unbiassed mind. 
 
 2dly. A second obstacle in the way of a just 
 decision of this trial, is found in the character, 
 standing, and talents of the accused. Were the 
 accused a man isolated in society, of but moder- 
 ate talents, low attainments, and of bad moral 
 ciiaracter, there would be little, perhaps no diffi- 
 culty in obtaining a decision against him; but 
 the very reverse of all this is true. And it is also 
 true, as has been strenuously pleaded before you, 
 (with wiiat effect I know not) that Dr. Beecher 
 by a long life of coricct conduct, and by the dili- 
 gent promulgation of what he believes to be re- 
 ligious truth, has acquired a large capital in 
 ciiaracter and reputation on which it has been 
 supposed that he could live in the west, notwith- 
 standing all opposition. While all this is not 
 denied, and while it is freely admitted that his 
 efforts especially in the temperance cause, have • 
 been such as to secure him not only admiration 
 at home, but fame in both hemispheres and 
 throughout the world, yet it is believed to be 
 very questionable whether he has been able to 
 import with him here all that amount of capital, 
 in established character, which he possessed be- 
 fore crossing the Appalachian. On this point I 
 shall refer the Court to what was written in New 
 
13 
 
 England, touching the manner of his acquiring 
 this capita], and also showing the loss of much of 
 it before he took his stand among us of the west: 
 thereby proving that the loss he has sustained 
 WHS not owing to the opposition he has had to 
 encounter on this side the mouniains, but was 
 incurred in the land from which he emigrated. 
 I shall beg to call the attention of the presbyte- 
 ry to two short passages in a book entitled 'Let- 
 ters on the present state and probable results of 
 Theological Speculations in Connecticut.' 
 
 Mr. Brainerd inquired who was the author of 
 the Letters? 
 
 Dr. Wilson stated in reply that they appeared 
 under the signature of 'An Edwardean,' and 
 contended that they were to be received on the 
 same footing as the papers fubmilted by Dr. 
 Beecher at the last meeting of presbytery. 
 
 Mr. Brainerd thought not: those papers had 
 been signed with the initials J. L. W. understood 
 to mean Joshua L. Wilson. 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied that he introduced these 
 extracts in order to show how the \icws expres- 
 sed in the letters of Dr. Beecher and Dr. AVoods 
 were viewed in New England, before Dr. B. 
 left that country: and if they were not evidence 
 of that fact, then there was no such thing as evi- 
 dence of anylhing. If he was to be prohibited 
 from referring to such proofs, then he might give 
 up, at once, all expectation of being allowed to 
 argue the present question. 
 
 Mr. BRMNERDsaid, that if the letters were 
 read as anonymouj, and were introduced merely 
 as a part of Dr. Wilson's argument, ho had no 
 objections to their being read. 
 
 Dr. Beecher wished to know what the accuser 
 intended to prove by these extracts? How did 
 they bear on the matter in hand? 
 
 Dr. AV'ilson replied that he introduced them 
 to prove that Dr. B. had not brought all that 
 amount of capital into the west which he had 
 allei;ed, and which he represented Dr. W. as the 
 instrument of curtailing. 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied, he was perfectly willing 
 that the extracts siioulJ be read; because he was 
 not willing it should be supposed he was afraid 
 of having this or anylhing else that could be pro- 
 duced read before the whole world: but he be- 
 lieved the admi^sion of iheni to be wholly irregu- 
 lar. Neither Dr. Wilson nor himself was here 
 to be tried on the point whether Dr. B. did or 
 did not bring with him inio tiie west the whole 
 ofthe capital he had possessed in the cast. What 
 if he did? or what if he did not? The thing was 
 wholly oiilre. Yet he desired Dr. W. might be 
 indulged to read it: he must take the liberty, 
 however, of sa_\ ing that it was wholly irrelevant 
 to the trial. 
 
 The Moderator thought the reading had bet- 
 ter be allowed; Dr. B. would have an opportun- 
 ity ofspeaking of its irrelevancy when his defence 
 was in order. 
 
 Dr. A\'ilson replied, that he wished to intro- 
 duce nothing irrclev<int;norshogld he have ever 
 
 thought of reading from this book, had not Dr. 
 B. attempted to produce an impression to Dr. 
 W.'s disadvantage and his own elevation. The 
 book seemed to be written not only with good 
 judgment, but by a man who possessed a chris- 
 tian spirit. In animadverting on a letter of Dr. 
 Beecher to Dr. Woods, of Andover, the author 
 first quoted the words of the letter, and then used 
 the following language in relation to it: 
 
 Dr. Beecher 'has had the deliberate opinion for 
 many years, derived from extensive observation, and 
 a careful attention to the elementary principles of the 
 various differences which have agitated the church, 
 tliat llio ministers of the ordiodox Congregational 
 church, and the ministers ofthe Presbyterian church, 
 are all cordially united in every one of the doctrines 
 of the bible, and of the confessions of faith, which 
 have been regarded and denominated fundamental.' 
 (See his second letter to Dr. Woods.) How much to be 
 lamented is it that Dr. Beecher did not make this dis- 
 covery in season, or that he did not seasonably feel its 
 influence to have saved unbroken ihe harmony of 
 his native state, and the peace of the surrounding re- 
 gion! For, whence came those chzrges of physical de- 
 pravity, and physical regeneration, and uf making God 
 the author of sin, which ceTla\ii\y did not arise with- 
 out his knowlf^dge, and which have grieved his breth- 
 ren for years! Whence came lliat labored cITort a few 
 years since, to mak; a new creed or confession of 
 faitli, for the state? who introduced it to the General 
 Assuciation, oradviscd to that measure, to the grief 
 and agitation of many minds, if as Dr. Beecher sup- 
 poses, we are all cordially agreed in every one ofthe 
 doctrines ofthe bible. Again, Dr. B. 'doubts not that 
 we might so live, as to leave the church in a blaze of 
 controversy, which tJic generation to come might not 
 live to see extinguished.' And wiiat I ask, has pre- 
 vented the blaze of controversy lor ten years past, but 
 the forbearance of those, who, though assailed on every 
 side, hive chosen to make almost any sacrifice for 
 l)eace? And what now prevents a blaze of controver- 
 sy, that many generations will not see extinguished, 
 unless those who adhere to the faith of their fathers, 
 arc willing to see themselves, and whit they esteem 
 the truth trampled in the dust? Let Dr. Beecher view 
 tiie subject on all sides. But he has at length made 
 the discovery, that there is a great dilTerence, in 'the 
 eye oflieaven,in the eye of man, and in our own eye, 
 on a death bed, -and on the record of eternity, beUveen 
 the appearance of a great pacification, or a great con- 
 flngralion, achieved by our instrumentality.' lie is 
 certainly to be congratulated on this discovery, and had 
 he made it ten years ago, the present agitations would 
 not have been witnessed. But it is matter of joy 
 that the discovery has been made, and it is devoutly 
 to be hoped the effects will soon be visible. Let Dr. 
 Beecher ilitii, use his influence to remove the present 
 causes of irritation and suspicion. Let us have men 
 at the head of our Theological Seminary, in whom all 
 the churches and ministers have confidence; and thus 
 give us back as an united community, our College, our 
 Christain Spectator, our candidates for the ministry, 
 our revivals ofreligion, our harmonious associations, 
 our united churches. But if this cannot be done, let 
 not Dr, Beecher, or any other man suppose, that the 
 christian community will always be amused with mere 
 sound; or that the cause of truth will be sacrificed to 
 the interests or caprice of a few men, pp. 32, 33. 
 
]4 
 
 Another consideration is derived from tlie letters 
 recently published by Dr. Beecher to Dr. Woods. 
 These letters contain some pathetic remarks, on the 
 benefits of union^ and the evils of alienation. But 
 these remarlfs, from Dr. Beecher,come too late in the 
 day and they imply an incorrect view of the subject. 
 They imply that the divisions and alienaiions are oc- 
 casioned by the opponents of Dr. Taylor, whereas 
 they are chargeable wholly to his friends, and himself. 
 It is presumed that some transactions, which took 
 place ten years ago, are not now present to Dr. Beecli- 
 er's recollection. The days and nights he has spent 
 with Dr. Taylor in maturing and bringing forward 
 this very system, which makes all the disturbance; and 
 the warnings they then received from an intimate 
 friend, who was sometimes present, and who pointed 
 out to them these very consequences, have proba- 
 bly passed, in some degree, into oblivion. There is 
 no doubt that if Dr. Beecher would, even now, set 
 himself to undo, what, by his countenance he has 
 done in this matter, the breach would, in a great 
 measure, be healed. But for him now to write let- 
 ters on the benefits or duty of union, though very 
 full of feeling, will not reach the case. Some exam- 
 ple with precept is needful. And especially, let him 
 not attempt now, to cast the odium of this separation 
 on those who have done nothing to produce it, and 
 who have, from the beginning, deprecated its exist- 
 ence; those who have kepc straight forward in the doc- 
 trines, in which they have always found consolation, 
 and by which they would administer it to others. 
 pp. 43,44. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, that after reading this he 
 would only remark that the date here given 
 corresponded exactly with the period mention- 
 ed by Dr. Beecher himself, in which he had 
 been engaged in preaching and publishing the 
 doctrines he now held. That period he stated 
 to have been the last ten years; and it was with- 
 in just that period, according to this writer, that 
 the troubles and disturbances of the churches 
 of New England on the subject of the new Di- 
 vinity had been experienced. This coincidence 
 of date gave the more authenticity to the state- 
 ments of the Edwardean. 
 
 Dr. Wilson now proceeded to read from a 
 printed 'Letter to Dr. Beecher, on the influ- 
 ence of his ministry in Boston: by Asa Rand, 
 Esq. Editor of the Volunteer,' as follows: 
 
 The object which I aim to accomplish is, either to 
 elicit something from yourself or your friends which 
 may remove injurious perplexities; or, if these must 
 remain on your part, to disabuse the public mind of 
 prevailing misapprehensions, and so arrest or retard, 
 if it may be, the progress of existing evils. I say, 
 disabuse the public mind; for although there are 
 many who probably understand and follow you, and 
 many others who regard your course as inconsistent 
 and erroneous; yet there are multitudes in our church- 
 es who do not, for lack of information, understand 
 this subject, even so far as it is intelligible to others. — 
 They have been accustomed to listen to you almost 
 as to an oracle. They have heard from you and of 
 you things which startle ihem. But they have heard 
 of your disclaimers, and your abundant professions 
 of orthodoxy; and they dispose of their perplexities 
 as they are able. Some stand in doubt of you; but 
 
 hope and believe all things. Others believe your 
 professions, and impute your seeming vagaries to the 
 eccentricities of your mind and the warmth of your 
 preaching — pp. 4, 5. 
 
 The novelties to which I refer in this letter, are 
 those which have been called 'new divinity,' and 
 'new measures.' I mean the theology of the New 
 Haven school — and the measures for converting sin- 
 ners and promoting revivals, which have had their 
 principal seat of operation in the State of New 
 York. It is no part of my object — it would lead me 
 too far out of the way, to prove these principles and 
 measures to be unscriptural; or even to show, at any 
 considerable length, what they are. That they exist, 
 is, I believe, granted on every side. That their ad- 
 vocates believe them to be widely different from old 
 principles and measures, and also to be exceedingly 
 preferable to them, is manifest, from the fact that they 
 continually inculcate and extol the new, and express- 
 ly undervalue the old; from the fact, that they perti- 
 naciously adhere to their alleged improvements, al- 
 though they know they are unacceptable to a large 
 portion of their brethren, and have excited animosi- 
 ties and divisions; and from the fact, that they seize 
 every occasion to diffuse their principles, and to in- 
 troduce men who preach them, at every open door. — 
 My complaint against you, sir, is, that you have act- 
 ed fully with other leaders in this matter; but not 
 with that open avowal of your object, which was to 
 be expected from your general reputation for frank- 
 ness, and from your Christian profession. 
 
 Of this new scheme of doctrine, which I have said 
 I cannot stay to exhibit at length, it is requisite I 
 should give a synopsis. Perhaps I cannot better 
 characterize it in few words, than by saying, that it re- 
 sembles, in its prominent features and bearing, Wes- 
 leyanism; a strange mingling of evangelical doctrine 
 with Arminian Epeculafions; a system, if such it may 
 be called, which the orthodox of New England have 
 long believed to be subversive of the gospel, and 
 tending to produce spurious conversions. It certain- 
 ly has some variations from that system, however, 
 which I need not point out. It professedly em- 
 braces the atonement, the deity of Christ, the Trini- 
 ty, the personalty and offices of the Spirit, depravity, 
 regeneration, justification, and the other doctrines of 
 grace. Its distinctive feature is, that it abundantly 
 inculcates human activity and ability in the affair of 
 salvation; even professing to resuscitate them from 
 the dead, alleging that we have heretofore killed and 
 buried them. Holding that sinners, though depraved, 
 have power to convert themselves, it proposes the 
 minute and direct steps by which they may effect it, 
 content with a general allusion now and then to the 
 necessity of divine influence to aid and persuade 
 them. pp. 5, 6. 
 
 Apparently induced by their wish to present the 
 ability and obligation of sinners in the strongest light, 
 and to convert them as fast as possible by every 
 means, the preachers in question have renewed the 
 attempt which has been a thousand times baffled be- 
 fore — an attempt to make the humbling doctrines of 
 the gospel plain and acceptable to the carnal mind. 
 Original sin is explained away. Adult depravity is 
 resolved into a habit of sinning, and the various ruling 
 passions; while the deep, fixed, inherent aversion of 
 the soul to God and all holiness, is kept out of sight. 
 Election, the sovereignty of God, the special influ- 
 ence of the Spirit in renovating the heart, are so ex- 
 
15 
 
 plained, that the, 'natural man' can understand them, 
 and be reconciled to them besides. 
 
 Yourself and the public will expect to know my 
 reasons, for regarding you as connected with the 
 New Haven school, and a leading advocate of their 
 theology. I will now attempt to give them. 
 
 1. Your preaching, together with your treatment 
 of inquirers and converts. And when 1 speak of this 
 chatacter of your sermons and addresses, I do not in- 
 tend sentence or expression; but the prevailing tone 
 of sentiment on frequent occasions, among your own 
 people, to otiier congregations in the city, and at nu- 
 merous opportunities abroad. 
 
 I cannot, however, refer to the chapter and verse; 
 or quote your language verbatim. You have seldom 
 put your new theology to the press, though you have 
 published much on various topics. Whether the o- 
 mission has been by design, or fur imperative reasons, 
 I know not. I must llicreforo resort to other sources 
 of evidence. And 1 here premise, that I do not af- 
 firm what you have preached, but what you have been 
 understood to prcacii ; for the words of tiie oral preach- 
 er pass into the air, and cannot be remembered with 
 perfect accuracy and repealed with confidence. I 
 only mean to say, that in Now England the impres- 
 sion is strong and deep, that you l.ave fully preached 
 among us the theology above described; that while 
 Dr. Taylor and others have written, and reasoned, 
 and philosophised, and mysliciscd, you have rendered 
 the same system pulpable and practical in your preach- 
 ing and ministrations, subserving their cause far 
 more cflectually than they have done themselves, pp. 
 8, 9. 
 
 Dr. W. said he had marked other passages 
 with the intent to read thtm, but would gpare 
 the time of the court, and lay the book on the 
 table for reference. 
 
 Now lie wished the Presbytery to recollect 
 the object for which he had introduced and read 
 these printed dorumt-nls; it was to show that 
 whatever amount of capital Dr. B. might have 
 attained — within (he last ten 3ears, ithad been 
 diminished, in no iiicoii.-idcrabic degree before 
 he had taken up his line of march tor (he west: 
 and therefore the loss was not chargeable on 
 the opposition of Dr. W. But suppose all this 
 proof be laid wholly out of view, and suppose 
 that Dr. B. is still in possession of the entire 
 amount of fame which can be the result only ofa 
 long life devoted to the promotion of what he 
 believed the cause of (ruth and benevolence, 
 was this to be pleaded in his favor here? was 
 he to be more exempt from the judgment of his 
 peers than the humblest individual in society? 
 Dr. W. would say to the court on this subject, 
 'Look not upon his countenance nor upon the 
 height of his intellectual stature.' You are to 
 'know no man after the flesh.' His talents, 
 fame, and even his usefulness, ought not to be 
 remembered when you cast your eye upon the 
 charges now before you. the inquiries sub- 
 milted to you are plain and important, lias he 
 published and preached prominent and radical 
 errors? What methods has he taken to propa- 
 gate, and render them popular, in the Presby- 
 terian Church? 
 
 3. A third article, said Dr. W., presented in 
 the way of a just decision in this case is Dr. 
 Green's review of Dr. Beecher's sermon on 
 'The Faith once delivered to the Saints.' Ex- 
 tracts from this review were read before this 
 court at its last meeting to prove — what? to 
 prove that if the specifications made under these 
 charges be all true, they form no proper ground 
 of complaint! Now I should not have referred 
 to this sermon, or to Dr. Green's review of it, 
 had they not been brought before you by Dr. 
 Beecher himself. I confess that all my knowl- 
 edge of the sermon is from the author's own 
 statements, from Dr. Green's review of it, and 
 from the review in the Christian Examiner, to- 
 gether with Dr. Beecher's answer in the Chris- 
 tian Spectator. Thus I get a knowledge of 
 sermon? I never read. But I would ask, is Dr. 
 Green to be quoted as good authority against 
 the standards of the Presbyterian church? Dr. 
 Green, it is said, pronounced Dr. Beecher a 
 Calvinist. Permit me, sir, to disabuse your 
 minds on this subject. Dr. Beecher did not 
 call his own sentiments Calvinistic. He called 
 his seimon 'a Select System' — held by no man 
 nor denomination, so as to render it proper to 
 call it by the name of any man or any sect; 
 and he says that some of almost every denomi- 
 nation hold it, and some reject it. Dr. (ireen 
 gives the same account of Dr. Beecher's 'Select 
 System.' He say«, that Calvinists in the most 
 proper sense of the term would except to some 
 of the articles of (his system, and a great many 
 who would by no means consent to be denom- 
 inated Calvinists would only consider Dr Beech- 
 eras holding (he Evangelical system substantial- 
 ly. Well indeed did Dr. Green say that strict 
 and proper Calvinists would except to some of 
 Dr. Beecher's articles of faith. Look, sir, at 
 the following: — 'men are in (he possessidn of 
 such faculties and placed in surh circumstances 
 as render it practicable for them to do whatever 
 God rcquii es.' This is an ardcle in Dr. Beech- 
 er's 'Select System' to which no true Calvinist, 
 and but few Arminianscan subscribe; for, while 
 it directly contradicts the Calvinistic creed on 
 the one hand, on the other it asserts an ability 
 in fallen man which intelligent Arminians deny. 
 Indeed, sir, no man can assert such an ability in. 
 fallen man, much less can he make it the foun- 
 dation of the Divine government, without being 
 deeply imbued with the Pelagian heresy, and 
 making a display of his entire ignorance of the 
 true doctrines of the Fall. 
 
 In reference to the Atonement, Dr. B. states 
 that God can maintain the influence of his law, 
 and forgive sin, on the condition of repentance 
 toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; 
 and (hat a compliance with these conditions is 
 practicable, in the regular exercise of the pow- 
 ers and faculties given to man as an accountable 
 creature. [See Christian Advocate. Vol. 2. p. 
 31, 32.J Every man who understands the Socin- 
 lan controversy knows thai those are precisely 
 
16 
 
 the sentiments of Unitarians. Did Dr. Green 
 say that Dr. Beecher was a Calvinist? No. — 
 What Dr. Green attenipts to show is that Dr. 
 B.'s 'Select System' contains sentiments to which 
 no strict Calvinist, no strict Arminian can sub- 
 scribe: and this is precisely what Dr. B. himself 
 asserted of this Select System. His words are 
 these: 'It is a Select System, which some of 
 almost every denomination hold, and some re- 
 ject.' And he calls it evangelical to prevent 
 circumlocution. Now I claim the right of call- 
 ing this 'Select System' by a more appropriate 
 name. And as Dr. B. is extremely anxious to 
 bciconsidered a Calvinist, I will call his Select, 
 System Liberal Calvinism: and I will adopt the 
 language of Dr. Green, and say 'the peculiar 
 sentiments of the class of Calvinists to. which 
 Dr. Beecher belongs are also apparent in other 
 parts of this discourse.' And what is Liberal 
 Calvinism? According to Huntington, (I do not 
 mean Huntington of London, nor Huntington in 
 Boston, formerly in the Old South Church, but 
 Huntington the author of Calvinism Improved) 
 in his book entitled Calvinism Improved, liberal 
 Calvinism is Universal Salvation. According to 
 Dr. Taylor and Prof. Fitch, liberal Calvinism is 
 the adoption of a Calvinistic creed 'for subst.ince 
 of doctrine,' admitting the primary propositions, 
 and rejecting the secondary as unwarranted and 
 obsolete explanations. According to others, lib- 
 eral Calvinism is the stepping stone to Pela- 
 gian perfection. In my opinion, liberal Cal- 
 vinism is that Select System now called in 
 the Presbyterian church New-Schoolism. — 
 What did liberal Calvinism do in Scotland? It 
 produced the Moderate party, against which 
 Dr. Witherspoon wrote his celebrated ' Charac- 
 teristics.' What did liberal Calvinism do in 
 England? It placed a Unitarian in the very 
 pulpit once occupied by the venerable Matthew 
 Henry. What did liberal Calvinism do in Ge- 
 neva? It placed a Neologian in the very seat 
 of Calvin. What has liberal Calvinism done in 
 America? It has undermined and almost anni- 
 hilated the Say brook Platform in New England: 
 it has divided, distracted, and almost ruined the 
 Presbyterian church under the care of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly: it has exalted unto high places 
 men whose talents and opinions are inimical to 
 the dearest interests of truth. It has palmed up- 
 on the east and west and south, such talented 
 and liberal spirits as Duncan and Flint and 
 Clappl And does Dr. Beecher consider it ap- 
 plause to be called a liberal Calvinist? Yes sir, 
 in this he glories. And in language which can- 
 not be mistaken, he declares that nothing has 
 done more to eclipse the Sun of Righteousness 
 than 'old dead orthodoxy.' He tells you that as 
 acongregationalist in New England, his creed 
 was the Assembly's Shorter Catechism and the 
 Say brook Platform; that as a Presbyterian his 
 creed is our Confession ofFaith;and atthesame 
 time he declares, that there is nothing in these 
 charges on the subject of erroneous doctrine, but 
 
 what he has preached and published /Irom ten io 
 twenty years in his 'Select System;' which some 
 of all sorts believe, and some of all sorts reject. 
 And what does he desire you to infer from all 
 this? That his sentiments are in accordance 
 with the standards of the church, at least, 'for 
 substance of doctrine;' or if there be 'shades of 
 difference,' they have been so long, so persever- 
 ingly and extensively propagated, that there is 
 now no just cause of complaint: as if when a 
 man is arraigned for sapping the foundation of 
 civil society, and introducing misrule in all the 
 states, he should plead in bar of the prosecution, 
 or in mitigation of his offence that as he had 
 been engaged in the project of a select system, 
 from ten to twenty years, no one now had any 
 right to complain. But suppose Dr. Green, in 
 1824, delighted with the ability with which Dr. 
 Beecher defended or sustained the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, had in kindness and courtesy, over- 
 looked the errors of the 'Select System,' and pro- 
 nounced Dr. Beecher a Calvinist in so many 
 words; what weight ought such a declaration to 
 have with you, on a trial held eleven years after- 
 wards? It ought, sir, to be with you less than the 
 dust of the balance. Could Dr. Green possibly 
 have foreseen what evils would result from this 
 'Select System' in ten years? And can any man 
 now see the amount of mischief which this 'se- 
 lect system' will produce in ten years more, if 
 the desolating tide is not rolled back? 
 
 4th. A fourth obstacle in the way of a just de- 
 cision, is the claim that is set up on the subject 
 of interpretation. Let us see wliat this claim of 
 interpretation is. I quote from Dr. Beecher's 
 work entitled, 'The Causes and Remedy of Scep- 
 ticism,' Lecture 2d. pp. 24 to 28. 
 
 With these remarks in view, I proceed to observe, 
 fliat the creeds of the reformation are also made often 
 the occasion of perplexity and doubt, to inexperienced 
 minds. * * 
 
 They were constructed amidst the most arduous 
 controversy that ever taxed the energies of man, and 
 with the eye fixed upon the errors of the day and on 
 the points around which the battle chiefly raged; on 
 some topics they are more full than the proportion of 
 the faith now demands; some of their phraseology al- 
 so, once familiar, would now, without explanation, in- 
 culcate sentiments which are not scriptural, which tlie 
 framers did not believe, and the creeds were never 
 intended to teach. * * * 
 
 Of course they appear rather as insulated, indepen- 
 dent, abstract propositions, tlian as the symmetrical 
 parts and proportions of a beautiful and glorious system 
 of divine legislation, for maintaining the laws and 
 protecting the rights of the universe, while the alien- 
 ated are reconciled and the guilty are pardoned; and 
 though as abstract truths correctly expounded, accor- 
 ding to the intention of the framers, they inculcate 
 the system of doctrines contained in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, — and though, as landmarks and boundaries be- 
 tween truth and error they are truly important; yet as 
 the means for the popular exposition and the saving 
 application of truth, they are far short of the exigen- 
 cies of the day in which we live, mere skeletons of 
 
17 
 
 truth compared with the system clothed and beautified, 
 and inspired with life, as it exists and operates in 
 the word of God. XJniiappily also, some of the 
 most important truths they inculcate are, in their ex- 
 position, so twisted in with the reigning philosophy 
 of the day, as to be 'n the popular apprehension iden- 
 tified with it, and are made odious and repellent by 
 its errors, as if these philosophical theories were the 
 fundamental doctrines of the Bible. There is no 
 end to the mischief which false philosophy, employed 
 in the exposition and defence of the doctrines of 
 the reformation, h:is in this manner accomplished. 
 Good men have contended for theories, as if they 
 were viliil to tlie system, and regarded as heretical those 
 who received ilie docirime of the Bible and only re- 
 jected their philosophy. » # # 
 
 It is my d>'liberate opinion tliatthe filse philosophy 
 which has been employed for the exposition of the 
 Calvinisiic system, has done more to obstruct the 
 inarch of Christianity, and to paralyze the saving pow- 
 er of the Gospel, and to th\<b up and organize around 
 the church, the uniurnbered multitude, to behold and 
 wonder, and despise and perish, than all other 
 causes beside. * * # 
 
 The points to which I allude, as violated by a 
 false philosophy, are the principles of pers nal iden- 
 tity, bv which the posterity of Adam are distinct from 
 or confounded with their ancestor, and the principles 
 of personal iiccounlability and desert of punishment, 
 as men are made accountable and punishable for his 
 conduct, or become liable to sin and misery, as a uni- 
 versal consequence. The nature of sin and holiness, 
 considered as materia! qualities or the substance of the 
 soul, or as instincts, or as the spontaneous action of 
 mind under moral government, in the full possession of 
 all the elements of accoimiability. And above all, 
 the doctrines of the decrees of God, and liie univer- 
 sal certainly of all events to his foreknowledge, as 
 they are either unexplained or explained by a false 
 pliilosophy. 
 
 To which may be added the nature of the atone- 
 ment and its extent, and the doctrines of election and 
 reprobation as they shine in the Bible, or through the 
 medium of n perverting philosophy. Whatever of 
 these philosophical theories appertained to the system 
 durii^g the arduous conflict for civil and religious lib- 
 erty, against the papal despotism of modern Europe, 
 men endured, even swallowed them unhesitatingly, 
 almost unthinkingly, in the presence of a greater evil; 
 but since the conflict lins passed away,iind the nature 
 of mind and moral government is better understood, 
 and the mmihers who think and will think for them- 
 selves multiply, these repellencies of false philosophy 
 have steadily increased, and will increase, till that 
 which is adventitious and .false 's relinquished — and 
 the truth is preached in its purity and unbroken pow- 
 er, pp. 24 to 28. 
 
 It seems that the principle of interpretation is 
 claimed; and that all things which Dr. Beecher 
 conceives to have been either twisted in or left 
 out where the confession is too full or too emp- 
 ty, and where it will not, in his judgment produce 
 those effects, which popular preaching was de- 
 signed to accomplish, must be stricken out or ex- 
 plained away. 
 
 I did indeed understand him to say at one 
 time that he only claimed the right of interpret- 
 ing these passages of the Confession, as the 
 
 church herself had interpreted them; hut here I 
 remark that the church, as a church, never has 
 given any interpretation of her standards, and 
 for this obvious reason that when once her prin- 
 ciples have been settled and thrown into the 
 form of a confes.-ion, all interpretation is at an 
 end, until she decides to review and alter her 
 creed. The faith she holds stands there in her 
 confession; which confession is to be received in 
 the obvious sense of its words, and all who be- 
 come ministers and rulers in her connexion, are 
 required to receive that confession ex animo, with- 
 out explanation. To prove this, I might refer 
 to every adjudicated case on the records of the 
 General Assembly. That body never attempt, 
 to give any interpretation of the church's stand- 
 ards, but simply proceed to compare the lan- 
 guage and conduct of individuals therewith. — 
 The slrtndardsare considered by her as a straight 
 rule, but interpretation can only be required, 
 when the straight rule is to be bent so as to make 
 it coincide with every curve or right angle 
 to which it is applied. Instead of this, the curves 
 and the right angles should be brought along- 
 side the straight rule, and then the discrepancy 
 will at once be obvious to all. 
 
 Dr. Beecher in his sermon, with a view to 
 prove its orthodoxy, refers to certain authorities; 
 which references are made both in the body of 
 the discourse itself and in the notes. These 
 authorities consist either of what arc called, by 
 some, standard writers or standard adjudications. 
 There is, however, but one adjudication men- 
 tioned, and that is by the Synod ofDort. It 
 will, however, no doubt, be pleaded that we are 
 to regard standard writers as interpreters of the 
 Confession of Faith, and that we are at liberty to 
 refer to them as showing what was the real 
 meaning of its framers. But in all the references 
 contained in Dr. B.'s book, there is but one 
 solitary allusion to the Confession of Fa'th, and 
 but a single quotation from any Presbyterian 
 minister. Why this long array of names? Why 
 are we told of Justin Martyn, of Origcn, of Cy- 
 prian, of Jerome, of Bernard and the Synod of 
 Dort? Why arc we referred to Calvin and 
 Bellamy and Hopkins and Smalley and West 
 and Strong and Dwight, neither of whom ever 
 adopted our standard^ or preached or published 
 in conformity with them? Unhappily, one pres- 
 byterian minister, and that as sound a man, and 
 as ripe a scholar as is to be found in any age, I 
 mean Dr. Witlierspoon, and he in but one single 
 sentence in all his works, has varied a hair's 
 breadth from the standards he acknowledged; 
 and that single sentence has been seized upon 
 with avidity. 
 
 But the appeal is made also to our theological 
 seminaries. We are, it seems, to interpret our 
 standards, not only according to Justin Martyri, 
 and Origen, and Cyprian, and Bernard, but ac- 
 cording to the interpretation put upon them by 
 our seminaries. And why are these quoted? 
 It is according to the old fashion, which prevail- 
 
18 
 
 ed before the Confession of Faith was ever fram- 
 ed, and continued to prevail long afterward. It 
 ■was the fashion of the day to refer theological 
 questions to the colleges of Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge, and nobody knows how many moref and 
 what they decided that was to be the interpre- 
 tation. Well, let it be so, if it can be; but I will 
 show you something about our seminaries. 
 What does professor Sluart hold? He is a pro- 
 fessor of high standing in a seminary where mul- 
 titudes of our young men receive their prepara- 
 tion for the christian ministry; and I have not 
 heard any one who came from thence, that did 
 not say, that both professor Stuart and Dr. 
 Woods advised them to adopt the Confession of 
 Faith; and yet what were the sentiments which 
 professor Stuart publicly preached and after- 
 wards published in reference to confessions? I 
 wili quote a passage or two from a sermon preach- 
 ed by him at the dedication of Hanover street 
 church, Boston, in 1826: 
 
 Wiial tiien are the peculiirilies which distinguish 
 ihem, and which render it proper to say of them that 
 they meet in the name of Christ, or on account of 
 Hm? A very interesting and a very delicate question; 
 one which, however, my text leads me to make an 
 attempt briefly to answer. If I am not fully, I am at 
 least in some good measure, aware of the responsibil- 
 ity and difficulty of the case. But I am not going to 
 dogmatize. I shall appeal to no councils; no fathers; 
 no creeds; no catechisms; no works of the schoolmen; 
 no lahors of acute and metnphysical divines; in a 
 word, to no linman system whatever. All, all of these 
 are made by frail, erring men. They are not of any 
 binding authority; and we have a warrant that is 
 sufficient, nnt to receive them or any of them, as pos- 
 ■Sfcssing such authority. I advert to the warning of our 
 Savior, which bids us coH no man master upon earth; 
 rfor there is one who is our Master, that dwellcth in 
 Jieaven. pp. 12, 13. 
 
 Now what is the testimony here? (And Dr. 
 Beecher adopted the same sentiment). I object 
 not to the language, but to the application of it. 
 Faithful adherence to a creed, after we have once 
 adopted it, is calling no man master. Professor 
 Stuart gays: 
 
 Another peculiar trait of christians, as drawn in the 
 New Testament, is, that they render religious homage 
 to the Savior. 
 
 On this topic, as well as on others, I stand not in 
 this sacred place to descant as a poleniic. With hu- 
 man creeds, or subtleties, or school distinctions and 
 speculations, 1 have at present nothing to do. Creeds 
 judiciously composed, supported by scripture, and 
 embracing essential doctrines only, are useful as a 
 symbol ot common faith nmong cliurclies. But they 
 are not the basis of a protestant's belif f; nor sliould 
 they be regarded as the vouchers for it. pn. 24 
 25. ^ ' 
 
 So much for the authority of this seminary. 
 
 But now let us go to another seminary, and 
 hear what language it holds. I quote .from a 
 book enUlLed, 'A Plea for united Christian 
 action,' bj Pv.1I. Bishop, D. D. 
 .^ To wlial an extent diversity of opinion as to doc- 
 
 trines exists among the ministers of the Presbyterian 
 church of the present generation, very few, I am per- 
 suaded, are prepared to say with any degree of exact- 
 ness. But were we to compare the present state of 
 opinion witJi what is known to have been the state of 
 opinion among the divines of a former generation, 
 who are now admitted to have been orthodox, the re- 
 sult likely would be, that we are not more divided on 
 any of the leading doctrines, of the Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith, than the fathers of that age them- 
 selves were. Baxter and Owen, for instance, are 
 readily appealed to by almost every minister of the 
 Presbyterian church, as standards of correct theological 
 opinion; and yet these men have given very different 
 explanations of some of the most important doctrines 
 of the Westminster Confession; and neither of these 
 men went in all things with the assembly. Nor have 
 we any reason to believe that the divines of the assenn- 
 bly themselves, in their final vote upon the most of 
 the articles in the Confession, were agreed upon any 
 other principle, than the principle of compromise. An 
 approximation towards unity of opinion as to the best 
 modes of expressing our individual views of divine 
 truth, is all that ever can be obtained in our adherence 
 to a public creed, p. 18. 
 
 If this be true, we must forever live in dis- 
 obedience to that command of the Bible which 
 enjoins all christians to 'speak the same things.' 
 
 And now, sir, as part of my argument, I beg 
 leave to read some passages of my reply to Dr. 
 Bishop. 
 
 Has Dr. Bishop yet to learn that the Assembly of 
 Divines did not meet of their own accord — that they 
 were permitted to discuss no suhject but what was 
 proposed to them by Parliament — that they were 
 carefully watched by Lords and Commons to see 
 that they did not transcend their commission — 
 that they sat long, and c^irefully investigated every 
 subject committed to their consideration — that when 
 they gave 'their final vote' upon each article — they 
 gave that vote upon principle, and not upon compro- 
 mise — that they were all ai liberty when their labors 
 were ended, and the Assembly was dissolved, to a- 
 dopt the Confession of faith, Catechisms and Gover- 
 ment, or not, as they pleased — and that Owen, and 
 Baxter, and Usher, and many others, never adopted 
 the standards of the Presbyterian church? Why sir, 
 do you amuse yourself and deceive your hearers by 
 illustrations drawn from the theological difTerences of 
 such men. 
 
 To show that t' ere was no compromise in the votes 
 of the Assembly of Divines, 1 need only cite one of 
 two cases. The Assembly were unanimously of 
 opinion that 'baptism is rightly administered by pour- 
 ing or sprinkling water upon the person.' But some 
 members thought that dipping oi" immersion ought to 
 be allowed as 'a mode of biiplism.' On this subject 
 the Assembly were divided, and the moderator gave 
 the casting vote against immersion. They nil agreed 
 that 'pouring or sprinkling was right. But 24 out of 
 49 thought immersion might be allowed as 'a mode 
 of bupiism.' When they were so equally divided up- 
 on a -mode' of external ordinance, and no compromise 
 could be had — and when the mtrjority inserted in the 
 book that 'dipping the person in water is not neces- 
 sary,', but thatfb.!tpiism as ordained by Clrrist is .the 
 washing with waterhyspvinkWn^ pr pouring water up- 
 on the person, in the name of the Father,' &c.— can 
 
19" 
 
 Kny soberaiinded man believe they would compro- 
 noite the essential truths of salvation? 
 
 Take another case. The Assembly of Divines, of 
 Westminster, was at first composed of £piocopahans, 
 Eraslians, Indepeniients and Presbyterians. 1 know 
 not that any of the Anabaptists, Neonomians, or An- 
 tinomians were members. The parliament sent an 
 order 'that the Assembly of Divines and others, should 
 forthwilh confer, and treat among themselves, of such 
 a discipline and government as may be most agree- 
 able to God's Holy Word — and to deliver their advice 
 touching the same, to both Houses of Parliament with 
 all convenient speed.' A plan was proposed, in order 
 to unite all parties, namely — that every bishop should 
 beindepen lent, and that synods and councils should 
 be for concord and not for government. Abp. Usher 
 was agreed to this plan. But no compromise could 
 be obtained. The Preiibylerial lorm of church gov- 
 ernment was adijpied I find no case of compromise, 
 but in regard to tlie Solemn League and Covenant. 
 The Scots' commissioners were instructed 'to promote 
 the extirpation of pojiery, prelacy, heresy, schisms, 
 scepticism and idolatry, and to endeavor an union 
 bet>veen the two kingdoms, in one confession of faith, 
 one form of church government, and one directory of 
 worship.' 
 
 The solemn league and covenant was lo pave the 
 way for all this, and was to be considered the safe- 
 guard of religion and liberty. This league was adopt- 
 ed in Scotland, none opposing it but the King's com- 
 missioners. When it was presented to the two Houses 
 of Parliament, they referred it to the Assembly of 
 Divines, where it met with opposition. 
 
 'Dr. Feally declared ho durst not abjure prelacy 
 absolutely, because he had sworn to obey his bishop 
 in all things lawful and honest, nnd therefore propos- 
 ed to qualify the second article thus: "I will endeavor 
 the extirpation of popery, and all anti-chrislian, tyran- 
 nical, or independejit prelacy;" but it was carried 
 against him. Dr. Burgess objected to several arti- 
 cles, and was not without some difficulty persuaded to 
 subscribe, after he had been suspended.' This looks 
 very much like the days of compromwe, does it nm? 
 Yet, there was a compromise. Mr. Gataker, and 
 mani/ otiiera, declared for primitive episcopacy, or for 
 one stated president, with his presbyters, to govern 
 every church, and refused to subscribe till a parenthe- 
 eis was inserted, declaring what sort of prelacy was to 
 be abjured. 
 
 The Scots, who had been intrdouced into the As- 
 sen.bly, were for abjuring episcopacy as simply un- 
 lawful, but the English divines were generally against it. 
 The English pressed chiefly for a civil league, but the 
 Scots would have a religious one, to which the English 
 were obliged to yield, taking care, at the same time, to 
 leave a door op mi for a latitude of interpretation. Here 
 was a com/jTomisc. And what was this door of ' lati- 
 tude of interpretation?' It was this: The English 
 inserted the phrase, 'of reforming according to the 
 word of God;' by which tiiey thought themselves se- 
 cure from the inroads of Presbytery. The Scots 
 inserted the words 'according to the practice of the best 
 reformed churches,' in which they were confident their 
 discipline must be included. Here was a compromise 
 from necessity. The English were obliged to adopt a 
 religious league and covenant, or not obtain the assis- 
 tance of the Scots in a war which they were carrying on 
 in defence of civil and religious liberty. As your rea- 
 ding is much more extensive and minute than mine, 
 
 I beg you to point out the instances where comprom- 
 ises were made, and a latitude of interpretation al- 
 lowed on points of doctrme. I believe it will be a dif- 
 ficult task for you, or any member of the New School, 
 to do this. And if this be not done, I hope to hear 
 no more about compromising the truths of God.— 
 pp. 9, 19. 
 
 What I wish to impress upon the mind of eve- 
 ry member of this court is, that it is out of 
 place to quote the opinions of men as standard 
 writers, and interpret the Confession of Faith 
 by them. The opinions of men on the contra- 
 ry, must conform to the standard as to a straight 
 line. Still more absurd is it to quote men who 
 never adopted our standards at all. Yet Dr. 
 Bishop refers us to Baxter and Owen, who gave 
 'very diiferent explanations of some of the most 
 important doctrines of the Westmininster Con- 
 fession,' as Dr. Bishop nfBrms. What have these 
 different explanations to do with the Coiifessioa 
 of Faith? If men do not adopt the Confession, 
 it is obvious their o pi ntons have nothing to do 
 with it; and if they do adopt it, and then give 
 opinions different from it, their creed should be 
 brought up, proposition by proposition, line by 
 line, word by word, to the straight line, that their 
 crooks and turnings may be discovered. I will 
 here state but one case in illustration: I publish- 
 ed a sermon on Imputation. When itiorfhodoxy 
 was questioned, I wanted my sermon laid side 
 by side with the Crnfcssion of Faith. The 
 editor of the New York Evangelist reviewed 
 that sermon; and in (he course of his review, what 
 does he say? That Dr. Woods advised his pu- 
 pils, if they should change their theological 
 views, still to retain the same language. But 
 that editor himself with more honesty, denies 
 both language and thing. If he has falsified 
 Dr. Woods, he alone is responsible for it. 
 
 Prof. BniGGS inqiiired for the copy of the 
 Eviingclist, to which Dr. Wilson referred. But 
 the Dr. replied that he had only a borrowed copy, 
 which was not now in his possession. 
 
 The editor of the Evangelist stys, that he 
 agrees with me and I with him as to the sense of 
 the st.indards; but that I and all wha hold 
 in sentiment with ma are absurd. Now I think 
 that the editor is quit-i as orthodox as those 
 who, while they contradict tlie doctrine of the 
 standard, still retain its language. And while 
 he is equally orthodox, he is a little more 
 honest. Yes, sir, I love that man, though I 
 hate his error. I love him for his frankness and 
 for his honesty. lie comes plump up to the 
 m.irk, and speaks out what he means. 
 
 To sum up what I have lo say on this subject, 
 I deny the justice of this claim of interpreta- 
 tion for the following reasons: 
 
 1st. Because when a confession of faith is 
 settled, interpretation is at an end; until it be- 
 comes unsettled, and a resolution is formed to 
 rc-considcrand alter it. 
 
 2d. Because no one is compelled to adopt 
 the Confession of Faith; and those who do are 
 
20 
 
 bound to adopt it in its obvious, unexplained 
 
 sense. 
 
 3d. Where the right of interpretation is 
 claimed and exercised, it introduces endless dis- 
 putes; and men will use an orthodox language, 
 and still teach error by explaining away the 
 language they use, 
 
 4th. The judicatories of the church, in giv- 
 ing decisions upon erroneous opinions, never 
 explain the standards, but simply compare the 
 language of which complaint is made, with the 
 language of the book. All the decided cases 
 have brought alleged error by the side of the 
 standards in their obvious language. Witness 
 the decisions in the cases of Balcb, Davis, 
 Stone, Craighead, and the Cumberland Presby- 
 terians. The compromise was adopted only in 
 the case of Barnes. 
 
 You sit here as judges and jurors. As jurors 
 you decide the facts; as judges you compare the 
 facts with the law in its obvious meaning, that is, 
 as unexplained. 
 
 5th. Duty compels me to notice a fifth 
 obstacle to a right decision in this case; and 
 which is found in the reni condition of this court, 
 I feel, sir, that I am speaking on a delicate 
 subject. I hope I shall speak so as not to give of- 
 fence. 
 
 Mr. Rankin here interposed, and inquired 
 whether it was in order for'Dr. Wilson to impugn 
 the integrity of the presbytery. 
 
 The Moderator replied, that it would not be 
 in order, but advised Mr. Rankin to wait until 
 he heard what Dr. Wilson had to say. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said that he had no wish to im- 
 pugn the motives of any man. But it was known 
 that at this time and ever since Dr. Beecher had 
 been received into the presbytery, there was a 
 large majority of its members, who coincided 
 with him in his theological views. While some, 
 with pain and with great reluctance, but for 
 conscience sake are constrained tooppose them; 
 others had taken him by the hand, circulated his 
 sermons, praised his works, and held him up as 
 the first theologian of his day. Could it be sup- 
 posed or expected, that brethren in such a situa- 
 tion would be willing to bring up Dr. B. to the 
 standards of the church, and try him and his 
 works by that rule? In condemning him, must 
 they not condemn themselves' And was it to 
 be expected that they should be willing to com- 
 mit suicide? 
 
 Mr. Rankin again interposed, and declared 
 that such language was wholly inadmissible. 
 
 Dr. Beecher said, that he wished Dr. W. to 
 be permitted to say all he had to say on that 
 topic. 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied that he was done; he had 
 nothing more to say respecting it. 
 
 6th. A sixth obstacle was found in the 
 fact thatmany orthodox and excellent sentiments 
 had been preached and published by Dr. B. 
 All this he most freely and cheerfully admitted. 
 But, said he, the question is, when we find 
 
 orthodox sentiments contained in a certain book, 
 but also find thrown in and linked in, and (to use 
 an expression of Dr. Beecher) 'twisted in' 
 with these orthodox sentiments, a set of most 
 heretical and perniciou opinions, what is it but a 
 concealing of poison amidst wholesome aliment? 
 Is not the poison the more dangerous, from the 
 inviting food with which it is surrounded? And 
 can any thing be worse than the practice of such 
 artifice? Sir, on this subject let me show you a 
 book. It is entitled; 'The Gospel Plan,' by 
 Wm. C. Davis; and in this book may be found 
 some of the finest passages, both as to the 
 eloquence of the language and the soundness 
 and orthodoxy of the sentiments they convey. — 
 There is a great deal of such sentiment; and 
 presented in the ablest and most convincing' 
 manner. In fact the greater part of the book 
 is of this character. Yet this book contains 
 the most pernicious heresy. And where is the 
 poison to be found? In comparatively but a few 
 pages, though in a covert manner, it is wrought 
 into many more. And what was the fate of 
 Wm. C. Davis? He was convicted of heresy, 
 and suspended from the ministry. But did the 
 presbytery which tried him, read this whole 
 work of 600 pages on his trial, in order to find 
 out the error? No, Sir, they extracted eight 
 propositions, which were short, concise, and de- 
 cidedly erroneous. Of these, I will give you 
 two as a specimen; and one of these, in the self- 
 same words, is contained in Dr. Beecher's ser» 
 mon on the native character of man. The 
 proposition is that God could not make either 
 Adam or any other creature either holy or un- 
 holy. And the sentiment is, that where either 
 has been as j'et no choice, there can be nothing ill 
 the creature either good or bad. And what 
 says Dr. Beecher in his sermon? He declares 
 that no action can be either holy or unholy, un- 
 less there is understanding, conscience, and a 
 choice. The other proposition is, that no just 
 law ever condemns or criminates a man for not 
 doing that which he cannot do. And how often 
 was that very sentiment asserted and repeated, 
 iterated and retierated in the sermon which was 
 read to us yesterday? I shall not pretend to 
 say but leave the coqrt to decide. 
 
 Having now removed, or at least attempted 
 to remove out of the way, what I conceive to 
 be important obstacles in the way of a just deci- 
 sion, I shall now proceed to examine the 
 charges themselves, seriatim, with their several 
 specifications, and the evidence in support of 
 them. 
 
 The court here took a recess of ten minutes. 
 
 First Charge. 
 
 The court being re-assembled. Dr. Wilson 
 proceeded to read again the first charge. — •' 
 [See it on first page.] 
 
 He then quoted the Confession of Faith, cb. 
 vi. sects. 3, 4, 6: 
 
 III. They being the root of all manktad, the g. 
 
21 
 
 of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and 
 corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, de- 
 scending from them by ordinary generation. 
 
 IV. From this original comiplion, whereby we 
 are utterly indisposed, disubled, and made op- 
 posile lo all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do 
 proceed all aclual transgressions. 
 
 VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a 
 transgression of the righteous law of God, and con- 
 trarv'^lhereunio, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt 
 upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to tlie 
 law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, 
 spiritual, temporal, and eternal. 
 
 Also the Larger Catechism, queslions 26, 27: 
 
 Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first 
 parents unto their posterity 7 
 
 A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents 
 unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all 
 that proceed from them in that way are conceived and 
 born in sin. 
 
 Q. 27. What misery did the fall bring upon man- 
 kind? 
 
 A. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of com- 
 munion with God, his displeasure and curse; so as we 
 arc by nature children of wrath, bound slaves to Sa- 
 tan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, 
 and that wiiich is to come. 
 
 He next read a portion of Dr. Beecher's ser- 
 mon on the native character of man: 
 
 A dppraved nature is by many understood to mean, 
 a nature excluding choice, and producing sin by an 
 unavoidable necessity; as fountains of water pour forth 
 their streams, or trees produce their fruit, or animals 
 propagate their kind. The mistake lies in supposing 
 tliat the nature of malterand mind are the same: where- 
 as they are ejitirely different. The nature of matter ex- 
 cludes perception, understanding, and choice; but the 
 nature of mind includes them all. Neither a holy nor a 
 depraved nature are })Ofsi62c, without understanding, 
 conscience, and choice. To say of an accountable 
 creature, that he is depraved by nature, is only to say, 
 that, rendered capable by his Maker of obedience, he 
 disobejs from the commencement of his accountabili- 
 ty. To us it does not belong to say when accountabili- 
 ty cotnmences, and lo wiiat extent it exists in the ear- 
 ly stages of life. This is tlie prerogative of the Al- 
 niigliiy. Doubtless there is a time when man becomes 
 accountable, and the law of God obligatory: and 
 what we have proved is, that, whenever the time ar- 
 rives that it becomes the duly of man to love God 
 more than the creature, he does in fact love the crea- 
 ture more than God — does most freely and most 
 wickedly set his affections on things below, and refuse 
 lo set them on things above, and that his depravity 
 consists in this stale of the nifections. For this uni- 
 versal concurrence of man in preferring the creature 
 to the Creator, there is doubtless some cause or rea- 
 son: but it cannot be a cause of which disobedience 
 is an involuntary and unavoidable result. Abiliiy to 
 obey, is indispensable to moral obligation; and the mo- 
 ment any cause should render love to God impossible, 
 that moment the obligation to love would cease, and 
 man could no more have a depraved nature, than any 
 other animal. A depraved nature can no more exist 
 without voluntary agency, and accountability, than a 
 material nature can exist without solidity and exten- 
 sion. Whatever effect, therefore, the fall of man 
 may have had on his race, it has not had the effect to 
 
 render it impossible for man to love God religiously; 
 and whatever may be the early constitution of man, 
 there is nothing in it, and nothing withheld froro if, 
 which renders disobedience unavoidable, and obe- 
 dience impossible. The first sin in every man is_/ree, 
 and might have been, and ought lo have been, avoid- 
 ed. At the time, whenever it is, that it first becomes the 
 duly of man to be religious, he refuses, and refuses in 
 the possession of such faculties as render religion a rea- 
 sonable service, and him inexcusable, and justly 
 punishable. The supreme love of the world is a mat- 
 ter of choice, formed under such circumstances, as 
 that man might have chosen otherwise, and ought to 
 have chosen otherwise, and is therefore exposed to 
 punishment for this his voluntary and inexcusable 
 disobedience. If therefore, man is depraved by na- 
 ture, it is a voluntary and accountable nature 
 which is depraved, exercised in disobed'ence to the 
 law of God. This is according to the Bible — 'They 
 have all g-one aside,' — eacli man has been voluntary 
 and active in his transgression. ' They go astray as 
 Eoon as they be born ;' that is in early life : — how early, 
 so as to deserve punishment, God only knows. 'The 
 fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.' Every 
 imagination or exercise of man's heart is evil. Na- 
 tive DEPILlVITy, THEN, IS A STATE OF THE AITECTIONS, 
 IN A VOLUNTARY- ACCOUNTABU: CREATURE, AT VAHI- 
 A^'CE WITH DIVINE REQUIRKME.XT FROM THE BEGINNING 
 OF AtrCOUXTABILITr. 
 
 The preceding part of (his sermon was intend- 
 ed to prove that nrian is not religious by nature. 
 It w:ll be recollected that throughout the whole 
 of what precedes this passage, there is a mixture 
 of that which has a wrong tendency, and is 
 against the standards of our church. For, let it 
 not be forgotten, that when tiie original pro- 
 position has been sustained, this paragraph is 
 introduced for (he purpose of explanation, in 
 order to show what the writer means by the term 
 accountability, in those passages where the 
 meaning of that term is not explicit. And the 
 explanation goes to show, that the sentiment 
 of the wi-iter is, that there is a period in human 
 existence when the creature is neither good nor 
 had. Now the question is, whether this senti- 
 ment does ordoes not conicide with the standards 
 of our church? Is it not at variance with them? 
 nay, does it not positively contradict them? 
 The question must be answered in the affirma- 
 tive, and the standards of our church must be 
 sustained. I might easily go on to show that, 
 according to this doctrine, the condition in 
 which children are placed under the moral gov- 
 ernment of God is such as fits them neilher for 
 heaven nor for hell; for, according to Dr. Bee- 
 cher they are neither holy nor sinful. In con- 
 tradiction to which, I might as easily prove, ac- 
 cording to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and 
 the faith of all sound Calvinists, that they are 
 under condemnation, although they have not sin- 
 ned according to the similitude of Adam's trans- 
 gression. Our standards keep up a constant distin- 
 ction between original sin, the turpitude conveyd 
 by it, and thepunishmentincurredprevioustothe 
 time of rolition on the one hand, and actual sin 
 on the other, ^s proceediDg from the depraved 
 
22 
 
 and corrupted nature of the children of Adam, 
 who are all born under a broken covenant, and 
 whose fallen nature is inherited, without their 
 knowledge or consent, from the federative rela- 
 tion in which they stand to Adam their re- 
 presentative and first father. 
 
 As to the first sin in any man, there are none 
 who deny that it is voluntary. But our stand- 
 ards teach that it is nevertheless only a corrupt 
 stream proceeding from a corrupt fountain. — 
 This the sermon denies; and holds that, previous 
 to this, the creature is neither good nor bad. — 
 Let us here apply our Savior's own rule of judg- 
 ment. He says, that a good tree brings forth 
 good fruit; and a corrupt tree brings forth evil 
 fruit. But a tree which is neither good nor 
 bad, can produce neither good nor bad fruit. 
 If it be true, that actions proceeding from any 
 nature are in accordance with the naure from 
 which they proceed, then (hat which proceeds 
 from a nature neither holy nor sinful can itself 
 be neither sinful nor holy. 
 
 But it is said that those who deny this, place 
 mind and matter upon the same footing; and 
 that the error of those who think that men are 
 born in sin, arises from supposing (hat the nature 
 of mind and matter is the same. Hear what 
 the sermon says on this subject: 
 
 A depraved nature is by many "understood to mean, 
 a nature excluding choice, and producing sin by an 
 u- avoidable necessity; as fountains of water pour 
 forili their streams, or trees produce their fruit, or 
 animals propagate their kind. The mistaite lies in 
 supposing that the iiature of matter and mind are the 
 same; wliereas they are entirely different. The na- 
 ture of matter excludes perception, understanding, 
 and choice, but the nature of mind Includes them 
 all. Neither a holy nor a d<!praved nature are possible 
 without understanding, conscience and choice. 
 
 Does the writer mean to say that none of the 
 animals has a depraved nature? that the serpent, 
 the vulture, the tiger, have not a nature that is 
 depraved? This he does not mean. But if 
 they have, whence did they derive it? whence, 
 but from the curse of the fall? Would there 
 have been any evil among the animals, if God 
 had not said, 'Cursed is (he ground for thy sake'? 
 Still there is a wide difference between the re- 
 lation which these inferior beingssustain to Adam, 
 and that which his own children sustain to 
 hirn. But according to the sermon, this is not 
 so. 
 
 But I forbear. The court has the sermon in 
 its hands, and is as competent as I can be, 
 to compare it with the standards of the church 
 and to see how far they agree or disagree. 
 Nor can they fail to see that this is but one 
 part of a system which a logical mind must 
 carry out to other and most important results. 
 What these results are, I shall show hereafter. 
 
 Second Charge, 
 
 Dr. Wilson now again read the 2d charge; 
 £See it on first page] also the following from the 
 Confession of Faith, ch. 9, sec. 3: 
 
 Man, by his fall into a slatSof sin, hath wholly lost 
 all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying 
 salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse 
 from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his 
 own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself 
 thereunto. 
 
 Dr. W. also read the following from the Larger 
 Catechism, Ques. 25; and Shorter Cat. Questions 
 101,103: 
 
 Q. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate 
 whereinto man fell? 
 
 A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man 
 fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the 
 want of that ■ righteousness wherein he was created 
 and the corrupt/on of his nature, whereby he is utterly 
 indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that 
 is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and 
 that continually; which is commonly called Original 
 Sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgres- 
 sions. 
 
 Q. What do we pray for in llie first petition? 
 
 A. In the first petition (which is, Hallowed be thy 
 name) we pray, that God woulrf enable us and others 
 to glorify hirn in all that whereby he maketh himself 
 known; and that he would dispose of all things to his 
 own glory. 
 
 Q. What do we pray for in the third petition? 
 
 A. In the third petition (which is. Thy will he done 
 in earth, as it is. in heaven) we pray. That God, by 
 his grace, would make us able and willing to know, 
 obey, and submit to his will in all things, as the angels 
 do in heaven. 
 
 With respect to what is here said concerning 
 freewill, the declarations of our standards are 
 proved by facts recorded in (he Scripture. The 
 first declaration is proved by the fact, that Adam 
 was not forced to cat the forbidden fruit; the 
 second is proved from the fact, that Adam at 
 first did good, and then did evil. And the third 
 is no less proved by fact and daily observation: 
 for men never do convert themselves; nor pre- 
 pare themselves for being converted. They are 
 wholly indisposed and unable, from the fall, to 
 do either. But the framers ofthis confession, 
 speaking of the will, say that the inability is an 
 inability of the will. But in the questions of the 
 catechism, and through the standards generally, 
 they take a just distinction between ability and 
 will. It is, indeed, said, that man is unwilling to 
 keep the commandments of God, but they give a 
 fuller explanation, when they come to state what 
 it is we ought to pra^- for; for there they teach 
 the church that she is to ask God to make her 
 both ableandwillingtokeep his commandments. 
 And I have cited these passages (o prevent any 
 cavil that might find seeming justification in the 
 phraseology of this chapter on the will. From 
 the words of the chapter alone, it might be ar- 
 gued, that though man has lost the will he still 
 retains the natural ability to keep the divine 
 law. But what the chapter does mean on this 
 subject, is afterward more fully explained, and 
 from these subsequent explanations it is per- 
 fectly clear, that our standards deny in a fallen 
 man both ability and will to do any thing spirit- 
 ually good. 
 
23 
 
 Dr. W. next read again the 2dspecification. — 
 [See it on 1st page.] 
 
 He then read an extract from Dr. Beech- 
 er's sermon on Dependence and Free Agency 
 —p. 11. 
 
 'J'lie si ner c;in be accouiitable, then, and he is ac- 
 countuble, for his iinpeiiiience and unbelief, though he 
 will not turn, and God may never turn him, because 
 he is able and only unwilling to do what God com- 
 mands, and which, being done, would save his soul. — 
 Indeed, to be able and unwilling to obey God, is the 
 only possible way in which a free agent can become 
 deservingofcondemnaiion and punishment. So long 
 as he i? able and willing to obey, there can be no sin, 
 and the moment the ability of obedience, ceases, the 
 commission of sin becomes impossible. 
 
 Here the question naturally arises, How does 
 it happen that such mullituJcs of the humnn 
 family suffer so much as they do previous to the 
 possession of the knowledge, conscience, and vo- 
 lition which is declared to be essential to all sin? 
 He then read from pages 19 and 23. 
 
 Ajid the more clear the light of his conviction 
 shines, the more distinct is the sinner's perception, 
 that ho is not deslilule of capacity — but inflexibly un- 
 willing to obey the gospel. Does the Spirit of God 
 produce convictions which are contrary to fact, and 
 contrary to the teachings of the Bible? Never. What, 
 then, when he moves on to that work of sovereign 
 mercy, which no sinner ever resisted, and witliout 
 which no one over submitted to God, what does he 
 do? When he pours iIk; daylight of omniscience up- 
 on the soul, and comes to search out what is amiss, 
 and put in order that which is out of the way, what im- 
 pediment to obedience does he find to be removed, 
 and what work does he perform? He finds only the 
 will perverted, and obstinately persisting in its wicked 
 choice; anil in the day of his power, all he accomplish- 
 es is, to make the sinnor willing. 
 
 It is not grace resisted alone, but the ability of man 
 perverted and abused, that brings down upon him 
 guilt and condemnation. The influence of the Spirit 
 belongs wholly to the rrmedial system. Whereas 
 ability, commensurate with requirement, is the e'luit- 
 able and everlasting foundation of the moral govern- 
 ment o( God. p. 19. 
 
 The facts in the ciiseare just the other way. The 
 doctrine of man's free agency and natural ability iis 
 the ground of obligation and guilt, and of his im- 
 poloncy of will, by reason of sin, has been the receiv- 
 ed doctrine of the orlhodo.x cliurch in all ages. p. 23. 
 
 To prove that this is the doctrine of the ortho- 
 dox church, we have here a long array of names 
 of men the most of whom never so much as pro- 
 fessed to embraceour confession. And not a sin- 
 gle item from that book which Dr. Beecher so 
 loudly eulogized and pressed with so much ern- 
 plinsis to his heart. 
 
 Dr. W.then read the 5th specification. [See 
 it on 1st page.] He also read the Confession 
 of Faith, ch. xiii. sec. 1, and ch. xiv. sec. 1. 
 
 They who are efleclually called and regenerated, 
 having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, 
 are farther annclifled, really and personally, through 
 tiie virtue of Ohriai's dcatli and r.surrec'ion, by his 
 word and Spirit dwelling in them; thedominiun of 
 the whole body of. sin is destroyed, and the several 
 
 lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mor- 
 tified, and they more and more quickened and strength- 
 ened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holi- 
 ness, without which no man shall see the Lord. ch. 
 xiii. sec. 1. 
 
 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled 
 to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of 
 the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily 
 wrought by the ministry of the word; by which also, 
 and try the administration of the sacraments, and pray- 
 er, it is increased and strengthened, ch xiv. sec. 1. 
 
 Also the Larger Catechism, question 72: 
 
 Q. 72. What is justifying failli? 
 
 A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in 
 the heart of a sinner by the Spirit an I word of God, 
 whereby he, being convinced ol' his sin and misery, 
 and of the disability in himself and all other creatures 
 to recover him out of his lost condition, not only 
 assenteth to the truth of the promise of the go.-pe I, 
 but receiveth and resteth upon Clirist and his right- 
 eousness, therein lield forth, for pardon of sin, and for 
 the accepting and accounting of his person righteous 
 in the sight of God for salvation. 
 
 He then read from Dr. Bcecher's sermon pp. 
 11, 19, and 29. [See above pp. 11 and 19.] 
 
 One would think that a subject of God's glorious 
 government, who can, but will not obey him, might ap- 
 pear to himself and to the universe much more ac- 
 countable, and much more guilty, in the day of judg- 
 ment, than one whose capacity of obedience had 
 been wholly annihilated by the sin of Adam. Does it 
 illustrate the glory of God's justice more to punish 
 the helpless and impotent, than to punish the volunta- 
 ry but incorrigible in rebellioa? p. 2i). 
 
 In answer to this, it might be said that for God 
 io pimish the innocent and the helpless, would 
 exhibit his character only in the light of a ty- 
 rant. But as he does punish the infants of our 
 race, it remains for Dr. B. to reconcile what he 
 
 here says, with the standards of our church 
 
 Where is there a single sentence in those stan- 
 dards which contains the assertion that all ca- 
 pacity of obedience has been annihilated by the 
 sin of Adam? And here I may remark, that 
 the disciples of the nevvsuliool, when speaking on 
 the subject of original sin, either deny or carica- 
 ture it. 
 
 Dr. W. here read from Dr. Bcecher's sermon, 
 as already quoted, p. 29. 
 
 Also from the Christian Spectator for 1825, p. 
 100, as follows : 
 
 Men are free agents; in the possession of such fac- 
 ulties, and placed in such circumstances, as to render 
 it practicable for them to do whatever God requires; 
 reasonable that he should require it; and fit that he 
 should inflict, literally, the entire penally of disobed- 
 ience — such ability is here intended, as lays a perfect 
 foundation for government by law, and for rewards and 
 punishment according to deeds. 
 
 The presbytery now adjourned till to-morrow 
 morning; closed with prayer. 
 
 Fri'lay mornings June 'V2lh, half past 8. — The 
 presbytery met and opened with prayer. 
 Third Charge. 
 
 Dr.Wileon read the 3d charge. [See it on 1st 
 
»1 
 
 page.] Also the Confession of Faith, ch. vi. 
 sec. 2, 4. ch. ix. 3. L. O. ques. 25, [quoted 
 above,] 149, 190— S. C.ques. 101, 103. [quoted 
 above.] 
 
 II. By this sin tliey fell from their original ri;iht- 
 eousness and communion willi God, and so beeume 
 d<;ad in sin, and wlioliy defiled in all the faculties and 
 pari? of siiul and body 
 
 IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are 
 utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all 
 good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all 
 actual transgressions. 
 
 III. Man, by his fall info a state of sin, hath wholly 
 lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompany- 
 ing salvation; s> as a natural man, being altogether 
 averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by 
 his own sirengil), to convert himself, or to prepare 
 himself ihereunto. 
 
 Q. 149. Is any man able perfectly to keep the 
 commandments of God ? 
 
 A. No man is able, cither of himself, or by any 
 grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the com- 
 mandments of God: but dolh daily break them in 
 thought, word, and deed . 
 
 Q. 190. What do we pray for in the first petition? 
 
 A. In -the first petition, (which is. Hallowed be 
 thy name,) acknowledging the utter inability and in- 
 disposition that is in ourselves and all men to lionor 
 God aright, we pray, that God would, by his grace, 
 enable and incline us and others to know, to ack- 
 knowledge, and highly to esteem him, his titles, at- 
 tributes, ordinances, word, works, and whatsoever he 
 is pleased to make himself known byj and to glorify 
 him in thought, word, and deed: that he would pre- 
 vent and remove atlieism, ignorance, idolatry, profane- 
 ness, and whatsoever is dishonorable to him; and by 
 his overruling providence, direct and dispose of all 
 things to his own glory. 
 
 He then quoted Dr. Bcecher's sermon : 
 When he pours the daylight of omniscence upon 
 Ihe soul, and comes to search out what is amiss, and 
 J)ut in order that which is out of the way, what impedi- 
 ment to obedience does he find lo be removed, and 
 what work doej he perform? He findsonly the will 
 perverted, and obstinately persisting in its wicked 
 choice; and in the day of his power,allhe accomplish- 
 es is, to make the sinner willing, p. 19. 
 
 The idea here conveyed is, that (he Spirit of 
 God makes a sinner willing in no other way than 
 by presenting truth to his mind in a clearer man- 
 ner than the preacher can exhibit it. He here 
 read from the sermon, p. 11. 
 
 So long as the sinner is able and willing to obey, 
 there can be no sin, and the moment the ability of 
 obedience ceases, the commission of sin becomes 
 impossible. 
 
 Dr. Beecher here teaches perfection in two 
 ways. For it follows that when any creature 
 has rendered himself incapable of doing good he 
 can commit no sin. And according to this doc- 
 trine, the devils must be perfectly sinless, ever 
 since the first sin whicli they committed; for I 
 suppose none will deny that by their first sin 
 they rendered themselves incapable of doing 
 good: and the ability ceasing all sin ceased 
 likewise. But Dr. Beecher in the first part of 
 
 his sermon maintains that the sinner is naturally 
 able to keep the whole law of God, and here he 
 declares that the Spirit makes him willing to do 
 it, and that while he is both able and willing 
 there can be no sin. And how can there be? — 
 The conclusion is perfectly logical. It is en- 
 tirely irrefragable, and follows by necessary con- 
 sequence from the premises. 
 
 And on this part of my subject, I will turn to 
 that part of the specification which declares that 
 some of the perfectionists have been inmates of 
 Lane Seminary, and I now call upon the clerk 
 to read the testimony which has been taken 
 before presbytery and recorded touching that 
 fact. 
 
 The testimony was here read accordingly. — 
 [See it on first page.] 
 
 After listening to this testimony 1 stippose 
 there can be no doubt of the truth of the state- 
 ment that some of the perfectionists were in- 
 mates of Lane Serninary. For ifthiswasnot 
 the fact, and if the leaven of that heresy was not 
 operating there, and if no fear was entertained 
 that it might increase and thereby aflFect the 
 interests of that institution, why was it necessary 
 for Dr. Beecher to give his students a warning 
 against it. For it seems that the letter to Weld 
 was not known in the Seminary. The witness- 
 es met With it elsewhere. And what says Mr. 
 Weed: that although the students expressed no 
 decided opinion in favor of that system in pre- 
 sence of Dr. Beecher; ^et he knew of many 
 who avowed to each other the opinion that eve- 
 ry exercise of the mind was either entirely holy 
 or entirely sinful. If we are to credit his word, 
 and no one thinks of doubling it, then the fact is 
 estr.blished not only from Dr. Beecher s finding 
 it necessary to deliver a .set lecture in opposition 
 to those sentiments; Out from the fact that many 
 of the students avowed them. No one will deny 
 the proprietyof young men in alheological senj- 
 inary investigating every subject of a theologi- 
 cal kind. That is all right and proper. But 
 when we have it in evidence that many of them 
 received and avowed the sentiment, that eve- 
 ry exercise of the mind is either entirely holy 
 orentirely sinful, does it not show that (hey de- 
 nied any such warfare in the bosom of a chris- 
 tian as is spoken of in the Confession of Faith 
 and in the Scriptures. God forbid that I should 
 speak a word against christian perfection. J 
 well know that it is one of (he precious doctrines 
 of the Bible; and when properly understood it 
 is what I long to feel, for myself, and to see far 
 more prevalent than it is among us. But while 
 I see perfection enjoined in the Bible, and while 
 I hear holy men earnestly praying for the attain- 
 ment; and while 1 can say that I delight in the 
 law of God after the inward man, 1 am neverthe- 
 less constrained to add, that 1 see another law 
 in my members which wars against this law ot 
 my mind. I can say that to will is present with 
 me; but how to perform that which is good I find 
 not. Oh wretched man that I am, who shall 
 
25 
 
 deliver me from the body of this death ! Now I 
 would ask if I had full abilitj before I was con- 
 verted, what has become of it? I have it not 
 now. Even when I will I cannot perform. — 
 There is a law in my members which wars 
 against the law in my mind, and brings me into 
 captivity to the law of sin which is in my mem- 
 bers; and who shall deliver me? I thank God 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord, we are com- 
 plete in him. And this is christian perfection. — 
 But not that perfection which is taught in 
 this sermon, or held by the students in Lane Sem- 
 inary, or by the perfectionists of New Haven. 
 
 With respect to these perfectionists, let me do 
 them justice. They are for the most part high- 
 ly talented men, and men of amiable disposi- 
 tions; but they are misguided. And how came 
 they to be misguided? I shall show. The fact 
 that such young men were in Lane Seminary, I 
 have not charged as a crime upon Dr. Beecher. 
 Can a professor hinder the presence of corrupt 
 students among (he young men under his charge? 
 It is indeed a serious question whether such 
 ought to be excluded. Dr. Mason was the only 
 man who ever expelled a student from a theolog- 
 ical institution for holding heretical opinions.— 
 And has it not been made a subject of grave 
 complaint that there were in Princeton Semina- 
 ry some who came there with the express view 
 of making proselytes to false doctrine. 1 ncv- 
 erallegcd it as any offence in Dr. Beecher. And 
 I introduced it merely to show that Dr. Beech- 
 cr's sentiments, whatever he might have intend- 
 ed, do lead directly to such results. No man 
 will pretend to blame him for warning his stu- 
 dents against sentiments or for delivering a set 
 lecture in opposition to them. But where is the 
 consistency of such a course. He advocates a 
 theory which naturally leads to this; a theory 
 which men do understand; which men of culti- 
 vated minds not only, but of very devotional feel- 
 ing, have understood, and have perceived that 
 it does lead to such consequences. If Dr. 
 Beecher had come plainly up and openly re- 
 nounced those doctrines to which his system led; 
 if he had declared with manly frankness that 
 though he had been the unhappy instrument of 
 leading those who contided in him tothe adop- 
 tion of such opinions, he nevertheless repudiated 
 and condemned them, this would have been con- 
 sistent and praiseworthy. But when he suffered 
 his sentiments still to stand unobliterated and 
 not denied in the text of this sermon; and then 
 proceeded to warn these young men against that 
 which was the necessary consequence, it was, 
 to say the least, not a very consistent course. 
 AM can see who have eyes to see, the perfect in- 
 congruity. 
 
 We heard a good deal yesterday, concerning 
 what these perfectionists hold. They publish a 
 newspaper called 'The Perfectionist,' the editors 
 of which, Messrs. Whitmore & Buckingham, are 
 responsible for every thing that appears in it. — 
 
 Let these gentlemen speak for themselves. Here 
 Dr. W. read the following quotation: 
 
 We believe the gospel is empliaticallyglad tidings 
 of redemption from sin, and Christianity is distinguish- 
 ed from the dispensation which preceded it, chiefly 
 by the fact that it brings in everlasting righteousness, 
 llence 
 
 We believe thatsinners are not Christians — we ob- 
 ject not to calling some of them Jewish saints, or sin- 
 ful believers, or unconverted disciples, or servants of 
 God, as distinguished from sons — but we alBrm that 
 they are out of Christ; for 'he that abideth in him, 
 sinneth not — he that sinnelh, hath not seen him, neith- 
 er known him.' 
 
 Now it is proper to know how these young 
 brethren (I still call them brethren, for they are 
 men of much mind and talent, and in many re- 
 spects of good feeling) should fall into sentiments 
 like these and should be so confident in the main- 
 taining of them. [The same confidence that 
 was displayed thirty years ago by the Shakers in 
 maintaining theirs.] They will tell you. Here 
 Dr. W. read as follows: 
 
 COLLOQUY. KO. 1. 
 
 B. I understand you profess to be perfect, bow is 
 this? 
 
 Ans. Clirist is made unto me wisdom, righteous- 
 ness, sanctification anl redemption. In the Lord 
 have I righteousness and strength. I will greatly re- 
 joice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; 
 for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, 
 he hath covered me with a robe of righteousness. We 
 are complete or perfect in hhi. 1 Cor. i. 30. Isa. xlv . 
 24., Ixi. 10. Col. ii. 10. 
 
 B. But don't you think we ought to have a right- 
 eousness of our own? 
 
 Ans. All ouRTightcousncsses are as filthy rags. For 
 tlicy being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going 
 about to establish their own righteousness, have not 
 submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. — 
 Not having mine own righteousness, which is the law. 
 but that which is through Ihi- faith of Christ, the right- 
 eousness which is of God by faith. Isa. l.xiv. 6. Rom 
 X. 3. Phil. iii. 9. 
 
 B. I have always understood that there is no per- 
 fection in this life? 
 
 Ans. Herein is our love made perfect that we may 
 have boldness in the day of judgment; because as 
 HE [Christ] IS, so are we in this world. Ye are 
 witnesses and God also, how iiolily, and justly, 
 and unblahieably we behaved ourselves among you 
 that believe. Be ye followers of me, even as i al- 
 so am of Christ. As many of us as be perfect be thus 
 minded. 1 John iv. 17. 1 Thess. ii. 10. 1 Cor. xi. 1. 
 Phil. iii. 15—17. 
 
 B. But don't you think it savors of pride to say you 
 live without sin? 
 
 Ans. It is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in 
 our eyes. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to 
 t/tink any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency 
 is of God. 1 am crucified with Christ, nevertheless 
 I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth inme. Lord thou 
 wilt ordain peace for us; for thou hast wrought all 
 OUR WORKS IN us By the grace of God I am that I 
 am. Not of works, lest any man should boast. In 
 God we boast all the day long, and praise his name 
 forever. What have we that we have not received; 
 
 i 
 
26 
 
 now if we receive all as a free gift, why should we 
 glory, as if we had not received it. Matt, xxi.42. — 
 2 Cor. iii. 5. Gal. il. 20. Isa. xxvi. 12. 1 Cor. xv. 
 10. Eph.ii.3. Psal. liv. 8. 1 Cor. iv. 7. 
 
 B. Admiiting that you are free from sin, would it 
 not be belter to avoid professing it? 
 
 Ans. With the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
 ness, and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation. Go home to thy friends, and tell them how 
 great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had 
 compassion on thee. And he went his way, and pub- 
 lished throughout the whole city, how great things Je- 
 sus had done untohira. No man when he hath light- 
 ed a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it un- 
 der a bed, but selteth it on a candlestick, that they 
 which enter in may see the light. I have not hid 
 thy righteovsness within my heart. I have declared 
 thy faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not con- 
 ^sealed thy loving-kindness ^nd ihy truth from the great 
 vongregaiion. Rom. x. 10. Mark v. 19. Luke viii. 
 16, 39. Psal. 1. 10. 
 
 This speaks language which cannot be misunder- 
 stood. Whatever may be their conceptions with re- 
 spect to the reformation, they give the Reformers no 
 credit save for having produced a reform in that which 
 wasanti-chrislianity; and they assert that God then 
 raised up others who have produced a true reforma- 
 tion, and who have carried it on until this day, when 
 it has issued in that new divinity, of which we have 
 all heard so much. This new divinity, it seems ac- 
 cording to their own account, was the thing which 
 gave them the first stepping stone; and no wonder; 
 for if the premises be true, their argument from them 
 is correct. If it is true, tiiat the sinner is able to keep 
 the commandments of God, and if the Spirit makes 
 him willing to keep them, there can be no sin. The 
 inference is most clear and logical ; and if I believed 
 the first position I would go the whole; nor can there 
 be any consistency in doing otherwise. The friends 
 of the new school must either return and take up the 
 exploded doctrine of human inability, or carry out the 
 Tjpposile scheme and avow themselves perfectionists. 
 Let them publicly abandon their whole system; or let 
 theni go forward like honest men, and boldly carry it 
 out to its results. 
 
 Lest it should be supposed that tne perfectionists 
 have done Dr. Beecher injustice, by associating his 
 narue with that of Mr. Finney, I will show how his 
 course was viewed in New England, by some quo- 
 tations from the letter of Mr. Rand : 
 
 Another reason why you are reckoned as a deci- 
 sive advocate of new principles is, the associations you 
 have voluntarily formed. And here we judge accor- 
 ding to the common maxim, that a man is known by 
 the company he keeps, p. 12. 
 
 Some years ago, but after Dr. Taylor had made 
 himself conspicuous as a fheoriser in theology. Dr. 
 Beecher had occasion to be absent a few weeks from 
 his people in a time of religious excitement; and he 
 put Dr. Taylor in his place, to preach and 'conduct 
 the revival.' Dr. T. did not harshly obtrude his new 
 theories upon the people at that time; but Dr. B. was 
 considered, by discerning men, under all the circum- 
 stances of the times, as giving distinct evidence of 
 partiality for his views. When the first protracted 
 meeting in Massachusetts was held at Boston, Dr. 
 Taylor did a large portion of the preaching, and was 
 the only minister from abroad who took part in the 
 public exercises. When Or. Beecher was in New 
 
 York, on his way to the wesi, he is understood to hare 
 taken frequent occasion to extol Dr. Taylor, as one of 
 the first theologians of the age. And they who are 
 acquainted with their consultations, correspondence 
 and other indications of intimacy, have long told us 
 that these two gentlemen were united in promoting 
 the same theological views, p. 13. 
 
 Now, sir, who was Mr. Finney's principal adviser, 
 coadjutor, and confidential friend, from bis coming to 
 Boston till he finally left it? I answer, without hesi- 
 tation, Dr. Beecher. Who originated the invitation, 
 I know not. It was extended by Union church, or 
 their agents. Mr. F. replied, 'I am ready to go to 
 Boston, if the ministering brethren are prepared to re- 
 ceive me; otherwise I must decline.' The question 
 was submitted to tlie pastors assembled. No very de- 
 cisive answer was given by most, I believe; but Drs. 
 Beecher and Wisner expressed their doubts of the ex- 
 pediency of the measure. But their doubts were soon 
 after removed; and he came, with their express ap- 
 probation, and the acquiescence of others. He was 
 immediately made the public preacher for the whole 
 orthodox congregational interest in Boston, and a 
 contribution was levied upon the churches to support 
 his family for six months. He held public evening 
 meetings, generally twice a week, in a large and cen- 
 tral house. These meetings were uniformly notified 
 in the several congregations on the Sabbath. Some 
 of the pastors usually attended with him, took part in 
 the exercises, gave his notices, and appeared to act 
 in perfect concert with him, though he was always 
 the preacher. In these movements, Drs. Beecher and 
 Wisner were more prominent and active than all the 
 others; and Dr. Beecher repeatedly declared in pub- 
 lic his full accordance with views which had been ad- 
 vanced, p. 14. 
 
 I have read this to show that it is not without 
 reason Dr. Beecher was connected by the per- 
 fectionists with Dr, Taylor and Mr. Finney. — 
 The system held by them all is substantially the 
 same, though they do not all express it so fuHj 
 as Mr. Finney and Dr. Taylor. The testimony 
 we have heard, has established the fact, that 
 some of the perfectionists were students in 
 Lane Seminary. Dr. Beecher's own book has 
 established the 3d specification. It is now with 
 the court to see what is the nature and amount 
 of my charge. I do not blame him, that such 
 students were there; nor do I charge him with 
 being a perfectionist, for he is not aware of it. 
 I merely charge him with preaching sentiments 
 from which those doctrines naturally flow. And 
 if these sentiments are inconsistent with our 
 standards, then let Dr. Beecher say which of 
 the two he renounces, and to which he adheres. 
 
 The Presbytery here took a short recess. 
 
 Fourth Charge. 
 
 Dr. Wilson now read the 4th charge, and 1st 
 specification. ,{See on 1st page.] He said that 
 he was not prepared to deny this when he wrote 
 the charge; but he was now fully prepared, 
 from historical evidence, to do so. 
 
 I will now give a definition of slander. The 
 verb means to belie, to censure falsely. The 
 noun means false invective, disgrace, reproach, 
 disreputation, ill name. A slanderer is one 
 
27 
 
 who belies another, who lays false charges upon 
 another. These are the definitions of Dr. John- 
 son; and I will now reduce them all to a scrip- 
 tural definition which is contained in the 14th 
 chap, of Numbers, 36 and 37 verses: 
 
 'And the men, wliich Moses sent lo searcli tlic land, 
 who returned, and made all the congregation to mur- 
 mur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the 
 land; even those men that did bring up the evil report 
 upon the land died by the plague before the Lord.' 
 
 Now I say that Dr. Beechcr has in his wri- 
 tings brought up an evil report upon the church 
 of God, and upon those ministers who teach the 
 doctrines of the Confession of Faith. To make 
 his impression the deeper, he has given a cari- 
 cature of their sentiments. Who that holds the 
 doctrine that a sinner is unable to keep the law 
 of God, preaches that man ought to engage in 
 the 'impenitent use of means?' Is not this a 
 slander? Yet from what was read here yester- 
 day, it appears that Dr. Beecher continued to 
 utter this slander, even after the charges had 
 been tabled against him. For he contends that 
 it was part of that false philosophy which was 
 twisted into the creeds of the Reformation. — 
 And he farther states that revivals have always 
 flourished where his doctrine is preached; or if 
 any have occurred elsewhere, it has been where 
 the old system has been mitigated in its severity; 
 and that it is other doctrines and not those of 
 the old system, which in such cases have been 
 blessed of God. Sir, this is the slander which 
 has for years past been cast upon the old school: 
 that its advocates are the enemies of revivals, 
 and that they preach doctrines which destroy 
 the souls of men. What did we hear in this 
 presbytery when a young brother applied for li- 
 cense? Although his doctrines were admitted 
 to be in accordance with the Confession of Faith, 
 and his licensure could not be withheld, yet it 
 was openly declared, that such doctrine never 
 converted men. We are told by Dr. B. that 
 where the doctrine of human inability to keep 
 the commandments of God, inability to convert 
 oursevles, inability to engage in any holy exer- 
 cises, have been taught, those churches have re- 
 mained like Egypt by the side of other church- 
 es where the opposite doctrines were inculcat- 
 ed. Yes, sir, like Egypt in its midnight dark- 
 ness, like the mountains of Giiboa without dews 
 of heaven, or fields of offering; or like the val- 
 ley in Ezckiel's vision where the bones were 
 very many and dry, very dry. 
 
 Now, sir, I ask, what has been the true history 
 of the revivals thus produced by the preaching 
 of the doctrines of the new school? It has 
 been just what 'the Perfectionist' stated. Such 
 revivals have left the churches cold, barren, and 
 spiritually dead. Such has been the utter ster- 
 ility experienced in the state of New York, and 
 in some parts of New England, that all vitality 
 is gone, and nothing but some new dispensation 
 of Divine grace can renovate the face of the 
 church. Sir, what has been the history of these 
 
 revivals on this side of the mountains, in our own 
 region, and within the bounds of our own pres- 
 bytery. Wherever the doctrines of the new 
 school have prevailed, and artificial excitements 
 have been got up among the churches, there all 
 vital religion has been prostrated, and the church- 
 es sunk into a death-like apathy and silence; 
 just such as 'the Perfectionist' informs us has 
 taken place on the other side of the mountains. 
 But on the contrary where the doctrines of the 
 Confession of Faith have been received and 
 faithfully preached, the churches are growing, 
 are in a state of order and harmony, and spirit- 
 ual health universally prevails. Now to bring 
 up an evil report on but an individual is slander, 
 provided the report be untrue; to say indeed 
 that a drunkard is a drunkard, or that a liar is a 
 liar, is no slander, however imprudent the de- 
 claration under some circumstances may be. — 
 But where the charge is made, and it turns out 
 to be utterly false, it is the crime of slander, 
 and is punished as such. But what is slander 
 upon an individual, when compared with slan- 
 der directed against the whole church of God, 
 against the orthodox in every age, against the 
 blessed apostle who first preached the gospel to 
 the nations, against the martyrs who freely shed 
 their blood to confirm it, and against the compa- 
 ny of the reformers who were ready to lay down 
 their lives in its defence? Look, sir, at that ven- 
 erable company of Westminster divines, men 
 whose talents, learning and piety have been the 
 theme of just admiration from their own age 
 until the present day; men who took up and in- 
 vestigated the whole system of divine truth, who 
 continued to sit for six or seven years, and who 
 yet when they formed their book, put into it this 
 doctrine of the inability of fallen men: a doc- 
 trine which it is said the men of the new school 
 have completely demolished; and with respect 
 to which none, according to Dr. B. had ever a 
 distinct apprehension, so as to rise above the 
 mists by wiiich the subject is surrounded, till the 
 time of Edwards; and those who have since 
 followed the track he marked out: men who 
 seem continually to cry out, 'We are the men, 
 and wisdom will die with us.' If this is not 
 bringing up an evil report upon the church of 
 God, upon the Christian ministry, and upon the 
 whole body of those who are the friends of or- 
 thodoxy in this country, I am quite unable to 
 conceive what ought to be so denominated. 
 
 Fifth Charge. 
 
 [See 
 
 Dr. Wilson here read the 5th charge, 
 first page.] 
 
 As the fact here charged has been conceded, I 
 need refer to no proof in its support. Dr. Beech- 
 er, however, objects to the introduction of the 
 word 'kindred' and has expressed a wish that 
 that word might be erased. To this I shall 
 make no objection, and will only observe that 
 there must be something very wrong when peo- 
 ple feel dishonored by their own kin. 
 
28 
 
 The MoDBRAToa pronounced this remark to 
 be a violation of order. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, if it was out of order, he 
 was willing it should be omitted. He thereup- 
 on proceeded to read the sixth charge. [See 
 first page.] 
 
 Sixth Charge. 
 
 He commenced his remarks on this charge by 
 quoting Johnson's definition of the terms: '%- 
 pocrisy^ 'dissimulation in respect to moral or re- 
 ligious character; ^hypocrile,^ 'a dissembler in 
 morality and religion.' 
 
 Dr. W. then read again the 1st specification. 
 [See first page.] 
 
 Under this specification I shall read from a 
 document produced by Dr. Beecher at the last 
 meeting of presbyterj'. He read only a part of 
 it. I wish to read a little more. It is an arti 
 cle from the Standard dated October 30, 1832; 
 and it is not over tlie signature of Dr. W. al- 
 though it was said yeslerday that Dr. B. had 
 read nothing but what had these initials append- 
 ed to it: 
 
 'New York, Oct. 20, 1832. 
 
 Allliough I have not liad the privilege of much per- 
 gonal intercourse with you, yet I feel as if I were inii- 
 mately acquainted with you. 1 am impelled also by 
 existing circumstances to write you, and hope you 
 
 will . I pray lliat you may have wisdom and 
 
 peace as you need to glorify God. Tlie 
 
 men of the new school talk much of love, forbear- 
 ance, and peace, when they are in minority, and wish 
 
 to carry their point; but when they have power, . 
 
 The friends of the Redeemer, however, have nothing 
 to fear. I regret that they should, in any instance, 
 
 have thought it necessary to contend against 
 
 with his own weapons. It appears to me that 
 
 we need only to pursue a straight course, abiding by 
 the word of God and the constitution of our church, 
 and leave events with the great Head of the church. 
 If we are in the minority, we can enter our dissent, 
 solemn protest, and remonstrance, and thus preserve 
 a good conscience, and be protected in our rights, by 
 
 the . I, for one, feel less apprehensions than I 
 
 did, and would discountenance any thing like the 
 combination, management, and attempts to overreach 
 aii practised by the new party. Let us be firm in our 
 adherence to the cause of truth and righteousness. — 
 Let us do our duly as Christians, and as ministers of 
 the gospel, and we are under the broad and impene- 
 trable shield of the promise of God. If we are 
 
 to be outnumbered and outvoted, be it so. has 
 
 always had a majority. God has always had his 
 
 witnesses. The churcli has always been preserved. 
 
 Perhaps the Lord may have something better in 
 
 store for us than we have feared. Perhaps ha will pre- 
 vent the spread of error in that branch of his church 
 
 to which we belong. It may be that shall not 
 
 have a majority in , Many in this region who 
 
 were on the fence, who were taken with their appar- 
 ent zeal and devotedness, and felt inclined to favor 
 their measures, have had their eyes opened, have 
 seen the tendency of their measures, and hnve 
 feeen disgusted with the men. They begin to feel 
 the importance of guarding our standards, and are 
 
 conyinced that the matter of difference between 
 
 js^something.rnore than a question about words . 
 
 The sessions of our Synod have just closed. The 
 doings in several cases were such as lo try our strength. 
 We have a large and decided majority of old school 
 men. The opening sermon was preached by a mem- 
 ber from the country, Mr. Thompson, who was in the 
 Assembly last spring. It was honest, bold, and faitli- 
 ful; much more so than we were prepared to hear. 
 
 . Most of our time was occupied in rectifying 
 
 the irregularities of the 3d Presbytery. When that 
 Presbytery was formed, we expected strange proceed- 
 ings, but our expectations have been far exceeded. — 
 They have held 35 meetings during the year, and 
 have licensed and ordained a very large number of 
 young men. 
 
 In the judgment of the Synod, expressed by a de- 
 cided vote, they have violated the constitution in 
 three instances, viz. — 1. In dismissing a private mem- 
 ber of the church, a female, over the heads of the 
 
 Session. The Presbytery gave her a dismission 
 
 and letter of recommendation to another church, which 
 church would not receive her. So she is still under 
 their care. 
 
 2d. In receiving Mr. Leavitt, of this city, editor 
 of the Evangelist, without any credentials whatever. 
 He was introduced to the Presbytery by Dr. Cox, 
 and received on their personal knowledge of him 
 without a dismission from his Association or Dismiss- 
 ing Council. 
 
 3d. In receiving Dr. Beecher without the requisite 
 
 credentials, and by letter, and dismissing him to 
 
 Presbytery without his appearing before them at all. 
 
 '■ ' He sent a written subscription to the questions 
 
 in our book, with a request to be received ; also a' re- 
 commendation from the Association to which he be- 
 longed, but not from the Dismissing Council, which is 
 the only ecclesiastical body which could give him cre- 
 dentials.' Yet they received him. He was thus 
 
 into a Presbyterian, that he might accept his call, and 
 become Professor in the Lane Seminary. They knew 
 he did not intend to reside within their bounds, but to 
 
 accommodate him, and prevent they received 
 
 and dismissed him in transitu. They were very 
 
 sensitive, and affected to consider our objections to 
 their proceedings an attack upon Dr. Beecher, which 
 was furthest from our intentions. It was not his 
 fault that they acted unconstitutionally. But you 
 perceive the tendency of such proceedings. 
 
 The committee appointed, — — , to examine their 
 records, being of their own school, reported favorably; 
 but in their statistical report, we learned the fact in 
 the case of Dr. B. and objected . After consider- 
 able discussion, a special committee was appointed to 
 examine their records, who brought their doings to 
 light. Two of their members were refused ad- 
 mission into Presbytery, and were not permit- 
 ted to preach in the vacant churches within their 
 
 hounds.. These are trying times, and call for 
 
 union and concert of prayer. I desire to feel that our 
 hope is in God alone. We need his guidance and 
 protection, and having that, we have nothing to fear.' 
 
 A member of the court here inquired wheth- 
 er this paper had any signature? 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied that it had not; and that 
 he should not have been at liberty to produce it, 
 had not Dr. B. been permitted to do so first. — ■ 
 Dr. W. then read the 2d specification. [See 
 1st page.] 
 
 With respect to this, I only need to remark, 
 that what I read under the charge of slander, 
 shows conclnaively.that Dr. Beecher does con- 
 sider the difierence of doctrine to be material 
 and essential. That it is not a mere logomachy, 
 
29 
 
 nor is there a mere shade of diflference between 
 the two systems. Far from it. For he tells us 
 that one of these systems of doctrine practical- 
 ly eclipses (he glory of the Sun of Righteous- 
 ness; and has done more to hinder the salvation 
 of souls than any thing else in the church; 
 while the other is blessed of heaven and spreads 
 light and life wherever it goes. Yef while he 
 thus impugns the standards of our church, and 
 places the two doctrines in so strong contrast, he 
 does — what? I do not say that he adopts our 
 standards, because I have no proof that he ever 
 has adopted them, But I do say, that if he does 
 adopt them, he is guilty of hypocrisy; and no 
 man can exonerate him from the charge. For 
 he must be a hypocrite who professes cordially 
 to adopt that which he disbelieves, impugns and 
 docs his best (o bring into disrepute. 
 
 Dr. W. then read the 3d specification. [See 
 first page.] 
 
 Under this specification I call for the read- 
 ing of the testimony which has been taken be- 
 fore this court, touching the declarations made 
 by Dr. Beecher respecting the Confession of 
 Failh, when he stood before the Synod. 
 
 The testimony was read accordingly. [See 
 first page.] 
 
 The specification under whicli this testimony 
 is introduced, comes under the charge of dissim- 
 ulation ; and it seems from the evidence, tiiat Dr. 
 Beecher has seen a time when he could not 
 adopt our standards fully. I do not l<now when 
 this time was; for I never have been able to 
 draw that out of him. Dr. Beecher himself 
 stated on a former occasion, that he commenced 
 his ministry on Long Island by adopting the 
 Confession of Faith as a Presbyterian minister; 
 that he then removed into New England, and 
 took the charge of a Congregalional church, but 
 without any change in his religious sentiments. 
 The Confession of Faith was still his creed, and 
 .'ilthough he acted under the provisions of the 
 Plan of Union, he still approved the form of 
 government adopted and practised in the Pres- 
 byleri.in church. He afterward left the Con- 
 gregational churches, and entered the body to 
 wJiich we belong. At tiiis time, it seems, he 
 6(111 professed to adhere to our standards; but it 
 was under certain explanations of the terms there 
 used. In the sermon which has been read be- 
 fore you, he admits (liat the language of the re- 
 formers spoke of man's iunbility; but that this 
 language was not understood, and therefore he 
 has a right of interpretation, inasmuch as the 
 church has interpreted her own creed. Ad- 
 mitting that he did adopt the standards fully 
 with tliis.right of explanation, still when his right 
 to explain was called in question, when the lan- 
 guage of his sermons was made a subject of 
 controversy, when he came before Synod in con- 
 sequence and found himself in peculiar circum- 
 stances, surrounded by a large popular assembly, 
 and placed before an ecclesiastical body, the 
 complexion of which was well known, and a 
 
 majority of whose members adhered to the stan- 
 dards in their literal sense and obvious meaning, 
 Dr. Beecher made those statements respecting 
 his belief in our Confession of Faith which have 
 been given in testimony before you. He made 
 them, the witnesses say, with an emphasis pecu- 
 liarly impressive. One witness spoke of the 
 waving of his hand; while another tells you that 
 he clasped the book to his bosom with a gesticu- 
 lation that was very unusual to him, and then 
 declared, in the form of an oath, that he believed 
 those standards to contain the truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth. This took 
 place in the autumn of 1833, and now in the 
 spring of 1835, what does Dr. Beecher publish? 
 Why he says with respect to the creeds of the 
 reformers, and not excepting his own creed, that 
 on some topics they were more full than tlie 
 proportion of faith would require at this day; 
 while as a means of popular instruction and the 
 exposition of truth, their language falls far short 
 of what is called for by the times in which we 
 live. 
 
 Now I ask, where is the man in this house, 
 who, upon his solemn oath, can state that he 
 believes this Confession of Faith to contain the 
 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth? For myself, I can say, unhesitatingly, 
 that it does contain the truth; and further, that, 
 according to my knowledge, it is the most perfect 
 system r f doctrine which has ever been compiled 
 by human cflbrt. Yet I could not say that it 
 contains nothing but the truth, although there 
 is nothing in it which I object to. Still less can 
 I say that it contains the whole truth, for I know 
 that it does not. It is obvious, therefore, that 
 the declaration made by Dr. Beecher, before 
 the Synod, was made in a reckless manner. And 
 taking all the circumstances of the case into 
 view, remembering where he stood, and that his 
 standing and orthodoxy as a christian minister 
 were at stake, it appears to me equally obvious 
 that the declaration was made for popular effect. 
 And what he has since published, shows that he 
 b/ilieves our standards to be far short of what is 
 called for by the exigency of our times; and 
 of course, that they do not contain the whole 
 truth. 
 
 Dr. Beecher here inquired whether the lan- 
 guage last referred to had been by him applied 
 to the Confession of Faith? 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied that he so understood it. 
 
 Dr. W. proceeded to read farther extracts 
 from Dr. Beecher's book, entitled: ' The causes 
 and remedy of Scepticism.' [Already quoted.] 
 
 Here, said Dr. W. he is attempting to show 
 that the very creeds of the reformation are calcu- 
 lated to produce scepticism. He says that they 
 arc mere skeletons. What then becomes of his 
 declaration, that they contain the whole truth? 
 And here I was going to stop; but I am led to 
 remark, in general, that Dr. Beecher is in the 
 habit of making reckless declarations. To show 
 this, I will take his lecture on the cause of seep- 
 
30 
 
 ticism. When speaking of the French revolu- 
 tion and its eflfect * * * 
 
 Here Mr. Brainerd interposed, and observed 
 that this was not relevant to the case. Dr. 
 Beecher was not on trial for making reckless 
 declarations. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, that he did not care about 
 the introduction of the passage. It would only 
 go to show that the sweeping declarations of Dr. 
 B. were intended for popular effect. They must 
 be made either without intention, and that would 
 argue what Dr. W. never should charge upon 
 Dr. B. namely, a want of sense; or they must 
 be made, as he had averred, for the purpose of 
 producing popular effect: and that was all he 
 had charged under this head. 
 
 Dr. W. then read the 4th specification. [Sec 
 1st page.] 
 
 On this I shall merely say, that when you look 
 at Dr. Beecher's sermons, and then consider the 
 facts in connexion with the third specification, 
 how can you conclude otherwise than that his 
 course exhibits dissimulation? 
 
 I shall now close the argument, by referring 
 the court to the decision of the Synod of Ohio, 
 which was made in reference to these very diffi- 
 culties: not as they have been occasioned by Dr. 
 Beecher's preaching and publications, but else- 
 where, as produced by others holding the same 
 sentiments. The Synod made a record on their 
 minutes, and gave it as an injunction upon all 
 the Presbyteries under their care, that persons 
 using doubtful language, or phrases which were 
 new, and which caused disturbance in the church, 
 should be subjects of discipline. 
 
 In the next place, I shall present to the 
 court Dr. B.'s creed, as contained in his Select 
 System. It consists of eleven articles, and may 
 be found in Dr. B.'s reply to the Christian Ex- 
 aminer. The Christian Examiner, let it be re- 
 membered, is a Unitarian paper, and the Uni- 
 tarians clainn all the articles of the creed, except 
 two. And such was the clearness of the article 
 in which this claim was advanced, so strong and 
 so conclusive were the arguments it contained, 
 that Dr. B. was obliged to come out in a long 
 and labored reply. The articles of the creed 
 are these: 
 
 ' men are free agents; in tlie possession of such 
 
 faculties, and placed in sucli circumstances, as to ren- 
 der it practicable for them to do whatever God re- 
 quires; reasonable that he should require it; and fit 
 that he should inflict, literally, the entire penalty of 
 disobedience — such ability is here intended as lays a 
 perfect foundation for government and for rewards and 
 punishments according to deeds.' 
 
 And now I ask, is there here to be found one 
 single distinctive feature which belongs exclu- 
 sively to that system of doctrine, which is taught 
 in our standards? There are, to be sure, senti- 
 ments, which are held in common; and the last, 
 especially, is received by Arminians, Catholics, 
 Universalists, and almost all other sects, the Uni- 
 tarians excepted. But here is not one single 
 
 distinctive feature of the Calvinlstic sjstemi 
 The creed may very appropriately be called a 
 Select System, which some of all sects receive, 
 and' which some of all sects reject. I will now 
 read Dr. B.'s note appended to his sermon on this 
 Select System. 
 
 Mr. Brainerd here inquired whether Dr. 
 Beecher had set forth these eleven articles as 
 the fundamental principles of Christianity, or as 
 expressing the whole of his creed. 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied, that he did not care 
 whether they contained his entire creed or not. 
 These were the articles as he had given them 
 in his sermon. Dr. W. then read the note as 
 follows: 
 
 'I choose to call these doctrines the evangelical 
 system not only because I believe them to be the 
 gospel; but because no man, or denomination, has 
 held them so exclusively, as to render it proper to 
 designate them by the name of an individual or a sect. 
 It is a select system, which some of almost every de- 
 nomination hold, and some reject; and which ought to 
 be characterized by some general term indicative of 
 the system as held in all ages and among all denomi- 
 nations of christians.' 
 
 To sum up the whole matter: it will be proper 
 for you as a court, to mark Dr. Beecher's course, 
 as far as it has been exhibited to you by evidence, 
 from its commencement to the present time. It 
 must be evident to all, that his course has been 
 marked with vaccillation, and has been calcula- 
 ted to excite deep suspicion and long and loud 
 complaint, both in and out of New England; that 
 it has been such as hitherto to elude detection, 
 and escape anythinglike a trial onits real merits; 
 that one feature which has peculiarly marked it, 
 has been the mixture in his publications of truth 
 and error: just enough truth to make the error 
 with which it is associated most deleterious and 
 deadly to the souls of men. This has been the 
 course adopted by all false teachers, in every age 
 of the church, as well before as since the coming 
 of Christ. Nor is it strange;. for no error could 
 succeed, if it should be presented naked and 
 alone, unless in a system of the most open and 
 abandoned infidelity, or in such lectures as are 
 delivered in Tammany Hall, New York. What 
 has our Lord told us respecting such teachers? 
 He said that they would come in sheep's cloth- 
 ing. And what is sheep's clothing, but an exhi- 
 bition in part of such truths as none can gainsay 
 or disprove, accompanied by an example of per- 
 sonal conduct with which none can find fault? 
 We have had two individuals in the west, I refer 
 to Barton W. Stone, and to Mr. Parker, of New 
 Richmond, who, while they were the most deci- 
 ded errorists of modern times, maintained for the 
 last thirty years morals of the most exemplary 
 and unimpeachable description. They came in 
 sheep's clothing. And what is Paul's descrip- 
 tion? He says that with good words and fair 
 speeches, they should beguile the hearts of the 
 simple. And what is very extraordinary, men 
 of this description have ever appeared to be 
 
31 
 
 entirely unconscious of their own inconsistent 
 and reckless course. Of this there is not a more 
 impressive example than that ofthebrilliantand 
 conspicuous Irving. When he had pushed his 
 delusion even to the extreme of professing to 
 speak with new tongues, and after he had been 
 tried and condemned for his false and heretical 
 opinions, he laid a paper on the table of the 
 presbytery, declaring in the fullest terms his be- 
 lief in the whole Confession of Faith. Errorists 
 ever appear unconscious of their own character. 
 And how can it be otherwise, when God himself 
 has told us that it would be so? The sentiments 
 of which I complain, are not insulated and in- 
 dependent tenets. They form part of a system; 
 and it is a system so connected, that if you adopt 
 one of its leading principles, and possess a logical 
 mind, you will be obliged to follow that principle 
 out, until you have adopted the whole. For ex- 
 ample: suppose you adopt the doctrine of the 
 natural ability of fallen man to do what is good; 
 his perfect capacity to comply fully with the law 
 and the gospel of God; and make faith and re- 
 pentance the terms on which God will forgive 
 sin and save the soul. You then necessarily ex- 
 clude the direct agency of the Holy Spirit upon 
 the heart in quickening those who are dead in 
 sin. You then represent the Spirit, in the work 
 of conversion, merely as being more capable of 
 presenting truth to the mind than a man is. 
 And this is the very illustration given in Ross' 
 treatise, entitled: 'Faith according to common 
 sense.' And as soon as you lay aside the agency 
 of the Spirit in creating a new heart, you get at 
 once upon the system of moral suasion. Then 
 comes an indefinite atonement, through which 
 God can forgive sin on condition of faith and 
 repentance; which repentance and faith the sin- 
 ner by his own strength is able to exercise, and 
 which he is persuaded to exercise because the 
 Spirit of God is able to present truth in a more 
 luminous manner, than a human preacher can do 
 it. Or, to use Ross' illustration, a boy cannot 
 split the log, not owing to any insufficiency in the 
 wedge or the maul, but because he has not 
 strength enough for the task; but when a man 
 comes along, and takes hold of them, the log is 
 immediately riven asunder. This- illustration, 
 however, was a bad one on their part, because it 
 implies passivity in regeneration, a point which 
 they deny. Well, as soon as you adopt the in- 
 definite atonement, you cut up by the roots the 
 federative representation of the second Adam; 
 and when you have done this, consistency will 
 oblige you to go back, and deny the federative 
 representation of the first Adam; and thus you 
 have got to the denial of original sin; and you 
 must say with Dr. Beecher, that 'somehow in 
 consequence of Adam's fall, all men sin volun- 
 tarily; and that the first sin in every man could 
 have been and ought to have been avoided.' 
 Again, take the other side of the proposition, 
 and you run into the system of the perfectionists. 
 Man is able to keep the whole law. The Spirit 
 
 so persuades him as to make him willing. And 
 when he is both able and willing, there can, of 
 course, b6 no sin. 
 
 Now we say that this is ' another gospel;' that it is 
 not the system of truth revealed in the scriptures; and 
 I am here prepared to say, as the apostle did, without 
 the least bitterness of spirit, and with an earnest desire 
 that God would be pleased to turn men from their 
 darkness and delusion, that if any man preach another 
 gospel, let him be anathema. The apostolic injunc- 
 tion must be obeyed : to mark those who cause con- 
 tentions among christians, and to avoid them; because 
 by good words and fair speeches, they beguile the 
 hearts of the simple. 
 
 Sir, this system is zealously pushed forward. It 
 has already created divisions and distractions through- 
 out the Presbyterian church. What was once the 
 condition of all the churches under the care of this 
 synod? They lived in peace. They acted as breth- 
 ren. Meetings of the synod and of the presbyteries 
 were anticipated as seasons of refreshing. We were 
 all engaged, not indeed to the extent we should have 
 been, in laboring in the Lord's cause. We did indeed 
 fall far short of our whole duty, but still we labored 
 together with mutual affection and our meetings were 
 blessed. And I here say openly and without fear of 
 contradiction, that we enjoyed happy seasons of reli- 
 gious revival until they were checked and interrupted 
 by the introduction of this new system. But sinca 
 tiie new divinity has entered our bounds, we have had 
 nothing but distraction and disunion. Our revivals 
 have been killed, and our once rejoicing churches now 
 sit in a death-like silence. Yes, sir, they are like the 
 mountains of Gilboa destitute of the dews of heavenj 
 they are like the bones in the valley of vision, dry, 
 very dry. My brethren you are called upon, as 
 guardians of the purity of the church, and watchmen 
 upon her walls, to restore that peace and order which 
 she once enjoyed, by putting a check to a system of 
 doctrine which ought, like the idols of the heathen, to 
 be cast with all speed, to the moles and to tlia 
 bats. 
 
 And let me tell you now, that with this system there 
 can be no compromise. Things which are so utterly 
 contradictory never can be made to coalesce. The 
 old and the new divinity are now engaged in an ardu- 
 ous and desperate struggle. It is like the contest of 
 fire and water. And ihey must continue to fight until 
 the weaker shall die. And though this is poetry, it is 
 no fiction. Much will depend on you. The days of 
 white-washing are gone by forever. That party which 
 shall be victorious will maintain the seminary and con- 
 trol its funds; and that party which is not sustained, 
 must go out; for we cannot live together. The Con- 
 fession of Faith must go down; or the new theology 
 must be put out of doors. Your decision, it is true, 
 will not be final. But if it shall be made in conformity 
 with the standards of our church, what you bind on 
 earth will be bound in heaven; and even tho,,gh it 
 should be annulled by men, will nevertheless n the 
 end be recognized by the broad seal of the great 
 Master. 
 
 The simple question which each of you is bound to 
 put to his own conscience, under each separate charge^ 
 in this trial, is simply this: has this charge been sus- 
 tained by evidence? and, unless I am greatly deceived 
 indeed, your reply must be in the affirmative. And if 
 it is, will you acquit this man? Will you tell him to 
 do so no more? and will you there let it end? Be 
 
32 
 
 reminded, I pray you, of the cases of Barnes and 
 Duffield. There a white-washing committee was 
 appointed, who white-washed both parties. In the 
 latter-case, the. charges were sustained and the man 
 proved guilty: he was gently advised to offend no 
 more. And what followed? — Peace? order? — No; 
 deeper and deeper animosities, and wider and wider 
 divisions, were the natural consequences; and must 
 continue to be the consequences, until the decisions 
 of church courts are made so clear with respect to the 
 infliction of censure that they will effectually guard 
 against the inroads of heresy, that they shall strike 
 terror into the breast of every heresiarch, and shall 
 rescue every inexperienced novice from his facilis 
 descensus Averni — the easy road to perdition. 
 
 I have taxed my ingenuity to discover what de- 
 fence could possibly be set up by the accused; and I 
 confess myself utterly unable so much as to conjec- 
 ture. This may be owing to my want of imagination 
 and of ingenuity; and Dr. Beecher will very probably 
 show something that was far beyond my powers of 
 imagination to anticipate; and v\hen his powerful in- 
 tellect shall hive demonstrated that white is black, 
 that two and two do not make four, then, and not till 
 then, may he expect an acquittal. 
 
 Friday afternoon, June 12. — Dr. Beecher 
 said, that before commencing his defence, he 
 wished to adduce some additional testimony in 
 reference to the question, how much of his cap- 
 ital in character he had lost, before he left New 
 England; and he adduced it in order to meet 
 the anonymous and personal letters which had 
 been read by Mr. Wilson, as published by Mr. 
 Rand, the Edwardoan, and others. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, he had no objection, so far 
 as it was testimony; but at present. Dr. Beech- 
 er himself stood on one side, and Mr. Rand on 
 the other, as to the question of Dr. Beecher's 
 capital in reputation. He presumed the Pres- 
 bytery was competent to decide between them. 
 
 Professor Stowe was thereupon sworn, and 
 testified as follows: 
 
 According to the best of my knowledge, Dr. B's. 
 reputation and influence in New England were never 
 so great, nor did he ever enjoy so extensively the 
 confidence of the religious community, as at the 
 time when he received and accepted the invitation to 
 come to Cincinnati. 
 
 To the best of my knowledge, ho had then but 
 three open and declared assailants of public charac- 
 ter: 
 
 (1.) Thomas Whitemore, editor of the Universalist 
 Trumpet: a paper uniformly marked with the worst 
 features of the most ferocious kind of Universalism. 
 
 (2.) Moses Thatcher, editor of the New England 
 Telegraph, a paper devoted to the most ultra kind of 
 Hopkinsianism, which m.ikesGod the direct, efficient 
 cause of every sinful thought, emotion, word and 
 deed of every sinful creature in the universe, and to 
 the most ultra kind of independency in church gov- 
 ternment, which he carried to such an extreme, that 
 the Hopkinsians themselves, wilh Dr. Emmons at 
 their head, made a public disclaimer and condemna- 
 tion of his views and proceedings in matters of church 
 discipline. Mr. Thatcher had had difficulties in his 
 own churcli, which were divided against him in a coun- 
 cil of which Dr. B. was a prominerit member. 
 
 (3.) Asa Rand, editor of the Volunteer, and after- 
 wards the Lowell Observer, I was for many yea:'s- acf' 
 quainted with Mr. Rand, having fitted for college in 
 the parish of which he was minister, and boarding 
 next door to hira, and afterwards occupying for about- 
 a year the same office room with him in Boston, as an 
 editor. He is a man of great industry, perseverance,^ 
 and other valuable traits of character; but, from his 
 peculiar habits of thought, and feeling; and actiour 
 not likely to do justice to such a man as Dr. B. He 
 was opposed to Dr. B's. theology, being himself an 
 advocate of the taste and doctrine Scheme of Dr. 
 Burton. He disliked Dr. B's. mode of preaching, be- 
 ing strenuously hostile to religious excitement and 
 strong appeals to the feelings, of which he had givert 
 decided proof many years before, by his disapproba- 
 tion of Dr. Payson'S mode of preaching, in whose 
 neighborhood he was settled, and whose sister he had 
 married. Besides, Dr. B. was uniformly successful 
 in Boston, and constantly rising in influence, while 
 Mr. Rand was uniformly unsuccessful, and his influ- 
 ence was continually decreasing. Those acquaint- 
 ed with the circumstances, will receive Mr. Rand's 
 statement and inuendoes with great abatement; not 
 from any distrust of his moral integrity, but from a 
 knowledge of the medium through which facts wou Id 
 present themselves to his mind. To the best of my 
 knowledge, the suspicions and complaints alluded to 
 in Mr. Rand's letter to Dr. B. were confined to a very 
 small number of persons, and did not by any rneanS 
 extend, to the great body of what is called the old 
 school party in New England, or the most judicious 
 and leading men in that party. Of the men of this 
 class, no one stands higher than Dr. Woods, of Ando- 
 ver. I lived in his house part of the time while I 
 was at the Seminary: from that time to this he has al- 
 ways treated me with the kin-dnesss, affection, and 
 confidence of a father, and I have always loved, and 
 trusted, and consulted him as such. While deliber-' 
 ating whether I should come to Lane Seminary, Dr. 
 Woods frequently, and with the deep feeling charac- 
 teristic of liim, expressed to me his affectionate con- 
 fidence in Dr. B. and his earnest wish for the success, 
 of the Seminary. The same feelings were express-' 
 ed to me by Dr. Woods, and the same kind wishes re- 
 iterated, when I visited him at his house in September 
 last. 
 
 Dr. Tyler is well known to the public as the chief 
 antagonist of the -New Haven theology. He stands 
 to me in the relation of a father and confidential 
 friend. I have been for years a member of his family, 
 and his children are my brothers and sisters. When 
 I was deliberating about coming to Lane Seminary, 
 Dr. Tyler expressed the same feelings with Dr. 
 Woods, and perhaps with still greater distinctness. — = 
 He has frequently said to me, in conversation, 'I al- 
 waj's loved Dr. Beecher, and have entire confidence 
 in him,' or words to that effect. It is my full convic- 
 tion, that the feelings of Dr. Woods and Dr. Tyler 
 towards Dr. B. are the feelings of the great body of 
 the religious community in New England, even among 
 the strong opponents of what is called new divinity 
 men and measures. The Congregational ministers 
 of Maine and New Hampshire, particularly, are al- 
 most entirely of this class, and I never saw one that 
 did not love and confide in Dr. B. ; and 1 am person- 
 ally acquainted, I think, with a majority of the minis- 
 ters in both those States. The pamphlet by an Ed- 
 wardean, I am sure, does not express the feelings of 
 
33 
 
 even the old school party !n New England. I never 
 heard Dr. Woods or Dr. Tyler say a word in favor of 
 it. This pamphlet was strongly disapproved by men 
 of all parties; and the author, as far as I know, has, 
 to this day, never dared to avow himself- and from 
 my connexion with opposers of New Haven theology, 
 I think I should liave known it, if he had. It was every- 
 where regarded in New England as a grept and heroic 
 sacrifice on the part of Dr. B. to give up the advan- 
 tages of the reputation and public infljence he had 
 then acquired, and to go to a distant field, wliere he 
 roust gain reputation anew, and work his way like a 
 young man. 
 
 Rev. F. Y. Vail was then sworn, and his les- 
 timony is as follows: 
 
 1 have, during the last four years, visited the church- 
 es and ministers extensively in New York and the 
 States of New England, in obtaining funds for the 
 Lane Seminary. I have great confidence in stating, 
 that the association of Dr. Beecher's name with this 
 institution was one of the most important means of 
 securing the funds requisite for its endowment, and 
 tliat both ministers and churches, wherever I have vis- 
 ited, have, with scarcely an exception, manifested the 
 most Unshaken confidence in Dr. B. The general 
 impression seemed to pervade the Congregational and 
 Presbyterian churches with which 1 have had inter- 
 course, that the removal of no other man would be so 
 great a blessing to this important section of our 
 country, as that of Dr Beecher; and it was with much 
 regret that they were called to give up his important 
 and valuable services in New England. 
 
 Rev. Artemas Bullard was next sworn, and 
 testified as follows: 
 
 For nearly five years I was Agent of the Massachu- 
 setts S. School Union, before Dr. B. was called to the 
 West, and for several years a member of Dr. B's. 
 church in Boston. I have visited nearly every ortho- 
 dox Congregational minister in Massachusetts, and a 
 portion of all in the New England Slates. Among all 
 these I Icnow the reputation of Dr. B. had been uni- 
 formly rising till he left. There was no minister 
 in New England so uniformly dreaded and hated 
 by Unitarians as Dr. B. I was in the church mee- 
 ting when the question was discussed whether 
 
 Dr. B. should be dismissed to come here 
 
 The main reason urged why he should not come, by 
 members of the church, was, that he never had so 
 much influence in the orthodox community as then. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. What is the standard of orthodoxy 
 among the clergymen you denominate ortiiodox?— 
 Ans. Those aro denominated orthodox, in New Eng- 
 land, who are opposed to Unitarian sentiments. 
 
 Dr. VV. Have they any written or published creed, 
 and which forms a bond of union among them in our 
 system of doctrine?— Ans. Nothing like the Confes- 
 sion of Faith of the Presbyterian church. 
 
 Dr. W. Is not every congregation, in respect to 
 its articles of faith, independent, claiming tlie right 
 of forming its own creed and covenant — Ans. 1 be- 
 lieve it is. 
 
 Dr, W. Was the creed and covenant of Dr. B.'s 
 church similar to that which has been extracted from 
 the sermon on ' Faith once delivered to the Saints?' — 
 Ans. J never compared the two. 
 
 Dr. W. In what estimation did the orthodox min- 
 isters of New England hold that sermon?— Ans. I 
 don't recollect ever hearing that mentioned as dis- 
 tinct from other sermons. 
 
 Dr. W. Has Mr. Rand, In his letter to Dr. B. 
 misrepresented or misstated Dr. B.'s connections wiih 
 Dr. Taylor and Mr. Finney? — Ans. I don't know 
 what was in tl)at letter. 
 
 Dr. W. Why did the Unitarians hale Dr. B. when 
 the Christian Examiner, in a review of his sermon on 
 ' Faith once delivered,' &c. claimed the sentiments 
 as their own? — Ans. They hated and dreaded himi, 
 because they supposed that he was the most powerful 
 and efficient opponent of Unitarian sentiments. His 
 labors in Boston were specially directed to counteract 
 Unitarian sentiments. 
 
 Dr. W. Do you not know it as a historical fact, that 
 Unitarians greatly rejoice ai the progress of what is 
 called new theology? — Ans. They did not, if you 
 mean that Dr. Beecher's doctrines are new theolo- 
 gy? 
 
 Mr. Brainerd. Are the orthodox ministers and 
 churches of New England Calvinist.' — Ans. Yes, so 
 far as they follow any man. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. In what estimation do ministers and 
 churches hold the Assembly's Sliorter Catechism? — 
 Ans. The orthodox churches, universally, consider 
 it the best epitome of the doctrines of the Bible. — 
 The families are taught that Catechism as universally 
 as they are in the Presbyterian church. 
 
 Dr. W. Do they teach the Shorter Catechism ns 
 it is mutilated and altered by the American S. B. 
 Union, or as it exists in the standards of our church? 
 — Ans. I never knew any of the American S. S. 
 Union Catechism in New England. They did use — 
 
 Mr.* Bullard confirmed the testimony of Prof. 
 Stowe, respecting Mr. Rand, and the Editors of tlio 
 Telegraph, Trumpet, and others. 
 
 Mr. Stowe called up again. 
 
 Dr. W. Has Mr. Rand, in his letter to Dr. B. 
 part of which has been read before this Presbytery, 
 misrepresented or misstated Dr. B.'s co-operation with 
 Dr. Taylor and Mr. Finney, in Boston? — Ans. I can- 
 not give a simple affirmation or negation to the ques- 
 tion, but must say, that the statements of the letter 
 arc unfair, inasmucii as they represent Dr. B. as en- 
 tirely concurring in, and responsible for, all the senti- 
 ments and measures of Dr. Taylor and Mr. I'ln- 
 ney; and the disclaimer which lie inserts of sncli 
 intention, does not at all correct the general impres- 
 sion which the letter always makes. (Read and ap- 
 proved.) 
 
 Dr. Beecher now rose, and addressed the court in 
 nearly the following terms: 
 
 I have fallen very unexpectedly, at my time of Jlfu, 
 on the necessity of getting testimony to supper! iny 
 theological and clerical character. But since I nin 
 called to it, I may as well make thorough work; and 
 I shall therefore request the clerk to read a letter ad- 
 dressed to me by the Rev. Dr. Green, two years pre- 
 vious to my coming to this place. The letter is dated 
 31st March, 1828, and is as follows: 
 
 PHiLADrjLPHiA, March 31, 1623. 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, — This, sir, will be handed you 
 by two members of the Fifth Presbyterian churcli of 
 this city, who have been delegated to consult yoa on 
 the-Bubject of a call to the pastoral charge of ttiat 
 church. They need no assistance from me, in ex- 
 plaining their views, or in showing the importance of 
 the situation to which they and the people they rep- 
 resent have invited you. My design, in writing ttiis 
 note, is to say, that having presided at the meeting of 
 the congregation, at which this call was voted, 1 can 
 and do assure you, that the most perfect unanimity 
 
34 
 
 and apparent cordiality marked the whole proceeding. 
 Public notice of the meeting had been fully given on 
 the preceding Lord's day ; the assembly was large and 
 solemn ; and there was neither a dissenting voice, nor, 
 so far as I judge, a neutral individual, when the vote 
 was taken. 
 
 I have only to add, that if you shall find itto be your 
 dgty to become an inhabitant of this city, and a mem- 
 ber of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, you shall, if I 
 am spared to witness it, be received and treated in the 
 most respectful manner, and with true fraternal affec- 
 tion. 
 
 Your friend and brother in the gospel of our precious 
 Redeemer, Ashbbl Green. 
 
 Ret. Dr. Beecber. 
 
 Let it be remembered, that this letter was 
 written by Dr. Green after he had commended, 
 as Calvinistic, the sermon in which I advanced 
 the doctrine of man's natural ability, for which, 
 in theopinion of my brother Wilson,! ought to 
 be turned out of the church, and of course Dr. 
 Green also. 
 
 I will now request the clerk to read another 
 letter addressed to me, about the same time, from 
 the Rev. Dr. Miller. This is dated April 2, 1828, 
 and is in the following words: 
 
 Princeton, April 2d, 1828. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Brother, — Before this letter reach- 
 es your hands, you will have been apprised that the 
 church of whichour friend Dr. Skinner was lately the 
 pastor, has given you an unanimous call to become 
 their minister. 
 
 Some are disposed to smile at this measure, as a 
 sort of desperate effort, orretahatwn, for robbing Phil- 
 adelphia of Dr. S. Others view it as a plan by no 
 means hopeless. But all, bo far as I know , in this 
 region, would most cordially rejoice in the success of 
 the application, and hail your arrival in Philadelphia 
 as an event most devoutly to be wished by all the 
 friends of Zion within the bounds of the Presbyterian 
 church. 
 
 My dear brother, I beg, with all the earnestness 
 that I am capable of feeling or uttering, that you will 
 
 not eitherlightly consider or hastily reject this call 
 
 I do seriously believe that, however painful the step 
 (of removal to P.) might be, both to the friends of re- 
 ligion in Massachusetts, and to yourself, the residue 
 of your days could not possibly be dispossed of (so far 
 as human views can go) in a manner so much calcu- 
 lated to wniVe the friends of Christ in the South and 
 West, with those at the East, and to introduce a new 
 era of harmony, love, and cooperation, in the American 
 churches. 
 
 It is not only a matter of immense importance, that 
 the individual church in Philadelphia, which gives you 
 this call, should be 'supplied with a pastor, wise, 
 pious, peaceful, prudent, and acceptable, as far as pos- 
 sible, to all parties ; but if you will come into that 
 place, I am most deeply persuaded, that you will 
 have an opportunity of a most happy and reviving in- 
 fluence all around you, to a degree which very few 
 men in our country have ever had ; that you will be 
 likely, humanly speaking, to bring together feelings 
 and efforts which are now widely separated ; and, in 
 fact, of giving a new impulse to all those great plans 
 which I know to be near your heart. 
 
 By removing to Philadelphia — unless I utterly mis- 
 calculate—you would not be likely to subduct very 
 
 essentially from your usefulness in Massachusetts 
 
 You might still, by means of writing and occasional 
 visits, continue to do there a large porttoli of what 
 you now do ; while your influence and usefulness in 
 the Presbyterian church, from New England to New 
 Orleans, might and probably would be increased ten- 
 
 fold. I have no douU that, Sy yoar acceptance of the 
 station to which you are called, your opportunity for 
 doing good iff the American chtttehea wonld be dou* 
 bled ifnot quadrupled, at a stroke. 
 
 Say not, that these things are matters of human caf- 
 culation. They are so ; and yet, I think, the book of 
 God, and human experience, furnish an abundant 
 foundation for them to rest upon. The truth is, we 
 want nothing for the benefit of our 1800 churches, 
 (next to the sanctifying Spirit of God) so much as an 
 individual in -Philadelphia, (our ecclesiastical metro- 
 polis) who should be active, energetic, untiring, com- 
 prehensive in his plans, and firm and unmoved in his 
 purposes and efforts. Will you not cast yourself on 
 the Lord's strength and faithfulness, and come and 
 help us to unite all our forces in one mighty effort, in 
 the name of our heavenly King, to promote his cause 
 at home and abroad? With the cordiality of a broth- 
 er, and the freedom of an old friend, I can assure you, 
 when such an open door is set before you, not to enter 
 it.* As to your reception among us, I hope I need 
 not say, that it would he universally , "with gladheartt 
 and open arms! May the Lord direct and bless' you! — 
 Sincerely, your friend and brother, 
 
 Samuel Miller. 
 
 I have reason to believe that Dr. Miller, at 
 the time he wrote this letter, had read all my 
 publications but the last; and if so, he and 
 Dr. Green ought to go out of the church to- 
 gether. 
 
 I have now another letter to read, of a some- 
 what later date; and now I am holding up my- 
 self, by certificates of character, I wish that this 
 too may be read. It is from the Rev. Dr. J. L. 
 Wilson. 
 
 Dr. Wilson here inquired whether this was 
 the same letter which Dr. Beecher had produced 
 at the last meeting of Presbytery. 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied in the affirmative. 
 
 Dr. Wilson then inquired of the Modera- 
 tor, whether Dr. Beecher had not said at the 
 time, that the explanation which he (Dr. W.) 
 had made in respect to it, was satisfactory. 
 
 Dr. Beeciiek said, that the explanation was 
 satisfactory, so far as respected the sermon on 
 Native Depravity, and no farther. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, he had no objection to the 
 letter being read; because he could make the 
 same explanation again. 
 
 Dr. B. replied, that he would not make the 
 same explanation, because he (Dr. B.) should 
 make that sermon an exception. The letter 
 now to be read had been addressed by a com- 
 mittee of the Board of Trustees of Lane Semin- 
 ary to the church to which Dr. B. belonged, 
 at the time he was invited to come here. It is da- 
 ted on the 5(h February, 1831, and is in the fol- 
 lowing terms: 
 
 Cincinnati, Feb. 5, 1831. 
 To the Hanover church and congregation : 
 
 Beloved Brethren and Fellow-citizens, — As a com- 
 mittee of the Board of Lane Theological Seminary, 
 the undersigned are called upon to address you in he- 
 half of that institution. [The letter proceeds to state 
 reasons drawn from a general view of the wants of the 
 
 * We print here according lo copy. It ought probablyto read, 
 ' I beg you, when such and open door is set before you, not to re- 
 fuse to enter it.' — Eds. Obs. 
 
33 
 
 west, for the erection of tbc Seminary, &c. It then 
 proceeds :] 
 
 Having presented this general view of the charac- 
 ter, claims, and prospects of our Seminary, permit us 
 dear brethren and friends, to specify a few particular 
 reasons why Dr. Beecber is called, by Divine Provi- 
 dence and the great interests of the church, to this in- 
 stitution, — 1. The strongest convictions of many of 
 our wisest and best men, east and west of the moun- 
 tains', that the great interests of the church, and es- 
 pecially of the west, require Dr. B.'s labors at the 
 head of our Seminary. A large number of our minis- 
 terial and lay brethren have expressed their deliberate 
 conviction that the enterprise of building up a great 
 central theological institution at Cincinnati — soon to 
 become the great Andover or Princeton of the west, 
 and to give character to hundreds and thousands of 
 ministers, which may issue from it — is one of the most 
 important and responsible in which the church was ever 
 called to engage, and that no man in our country, in 
 many important respects, is so well fitted to give 
 character, energy, and success to such an institu- 
 tion as Dr. Beecher. Never has the presentation of 
 a similar subject excited more deep and lively inter- 
 est, and called forth a more general and cordial ap- 
 probation among the friends of religion at the east 
 and the west, than by the announcement of Dr. Beech- 
 er's appointment as our President and Theological 
 Professor, and the consequent prospect of our secur- 
 ing ample funds for the endowment of the institution. 
 This voice of public opinion and of the ministers 
 and the church of Christ, wethink is to be regarded 
 as no unimportant indication of the will of Providence 
 in this matter, 
 
 2. Dr. Beecher's well known standing and well 
 known reputation at the west, as well as the east, will 
 make his labors of incalculable importance to our 
 seminary. • • • Nor is it a consideration of small 
 importance, that Dr. B.'s habits of rigorous exercise 
 and labor would exert a most powerful practical influ- 
 ence in giving increased reputation and popularity 
 among the community generally, 
 
 3. • • • The church is now doubtless entering 
 into the most eventful period of her most glorious en- 
 terprise, in speedily sending the gospel to every crea- 
 ture, and subjugating the world to the Prince of 
 Peace, To accomplish this great work, we want, in- 
 deed, hundreds and thousands of additional laborers, 
 but we need more especially, in the character of those 
 who come forth, to see men of higher and holier enter- 
 prise than most of us who have entered the ministry. 
 Do we not need, and must we not have, if the millen- 
 nium is ever to come, men of evangelical and deep- 
 toned piety ; baptised into the spirit of revivals — pos- 
 sessing clear and discriminating views of divine truth 
 — despising the compromising spirit of worldly pru- 
 dence — fearless and firm in their attacks upon the 
 strong holds of infidelity and the devil ; men, who 
 should bo fully up to, or rather far in advance of, the 
 spirit of the age, in christian enterprise and action, 
 and men whose whole souls are absorbed in the great 
 work of converting the world. And how, dear breth- 
 ren and friends, can wo so effectually rear up such 
 men, as by putting them under the instruction of one, 
 whose spirit shall become theirs, and who, without in- 
 vidious comparisons, has no superior in the character- 
 istics now mentioned in this or any other portion of 
 Christendom 1 
 
 When we reflect how much has been accomplished, 
 and is now doing, for the salvation of our country and 
 the world, by one such spirit as Beecher, we feel that 
 the church will be deprived of his most important ser- 
 vices and influence, unless he is permitted to impress 
 the important lineaments of his character upon the ris- 
 ing ministers of the west. 
 
 4. The influence which Dr, B. would be able to ex- 
 ert in our city and the surrounding country, as a 
 
 preacher, renders his labors at this point peculiarly 
 important and desirable. It is well known that Cin- 
 cinnati now contains about 30,000 inhabitants, &c. ■ 
 • • While training up young men for the ministry 
 where their influence on the city will be powerfully 
 felt, the contiguity of our seminary to the city will 
 enable the Doctor to preach the gospel to the popula- 
 tion as extensively and powerfully, and, we doubt not, 
 as successfully, as at any former period of his minis- 
 try. Who then would not rejoice to see Dr. Beecher 
 double his influence and usefulness, by giving charac- 
 ter and prominence to a great Theological Seminary, 
 while powerfully wielding at the same time the sword 
 of truth against the augmenting powers of darkness in 
 our city and surrounding country ■! 
 
 5. The deep and general interest which would be 
 awakened at the east, in behalf of the west, by the re- 
 moval of Dr. Beecher to our Seminary, constitutes, in 
 our estimation, an urgent reason for his acceptance of 
 our call. We all thank God and take courage, in view 
 of the interest which has been excited, and the effort 
 made at the east, in behalf of the west within the last 
 few years. ■ • 4-c. What then, do we ask, can be 
 done now for the west, &c, 1 We answer, let hun- 
 dreds and thousands of pious and intelligent families 
 from the east, with the spirit of missionaries, scatter 
 themselves over all the towns and villages of our 
 Great Valley, without delay, • • • Do you ask, 
 how the interest, necessary interest to bring them ou 
 the ground, can be excited! We reply, let it be known 
 that Dr. Beecher is really going into this field of labor 
 himself ; that in entering upon the work, he is will- 
 ing to lead the way; and, as be passes over the Alle- 
 ghenics, let him pass through the old states and beat 
 up for volunteers in this truly christian crusade 
 against the infidels. And when the east feel eudicient 
 interest in the salvation of the west to send to her aid, 
 not merely a few of the young and inexperienced sub- 
 alterns, but some of their most distinguished generals, 
 it will be felt that the warfare in which we are engag- 
 ed is one which must soon give liberty and happiness, 
 or despotism and ruin to our country ; nor will men 
 nor resources be wanting to achieve a speedy and tri- 
 umphant victory. 
 
 The last reason we shall mention for Dr, Beecher's 
 connexion with our institution is, that the security of 
 the funds pledged on this condition, and the conse- 
 quent existence and prosperity of the Seminary de- 
 pend upon it. ■ • • The professorships, amount- 
 ing, in all, to $50,000, are nearly secured, on condi- 
 tion that Dr, Beecher becomes our professor, and that 
 we at the west raise from $10,000 to $20,000 more, 
 for buildings, &c. These funds, thus liberally offered 
 to us, are to be given on account of the special confi- 
 dence which the donors place in Dr. Beecher, to pre- 
 side over and give character and success to our Sem- 
 inary, &c. 
 
 By a Committee of the Board : 
 
 J, L. Wilson, 1 Signed by me at 
 J. Gallaher, > their request, 
 F, Y. Vail, ) F. Y, Vail. 
 
 It is proper I should state that Dr. Wilson 
 declared that he had not seen my sermon on the 
 Native Character of Man, at the time this letter 
 was written ; but he certainly had a full knowl- 
 edge of mj sentiments on the subject of natural 
 ability so long before as the year 1817, when 
 he had a conversation with me on that subject. 
 
 Dr. Beeciier having no farther testimony to adduce, 
 now entered upon his defence, and spoke substantial-' 
 ly as follows: 
 
 I have two causes of embarrassment in entering 
 upon this subject. I know that I am liable to be re- 
 garded as a stranger, thrust in upon the quiet and 
 
86 
 
 comfprt of a venerable patriarch, who had Ijorne the 
 heat and burden of the day; and vexing his righteous 
 soul by obtruding upon l.im my own novel crudities 
 and heresies. And in the second place, I am also 
 aware that it may be said that ever since I came here, 
 there has. been nothing but quarreling in the 'church- 
 es of the west; and tl)at so it will be all the time I 
 stay here.' To this ray answer is, that as to my be- 
 ing an intruder, this good brother himself called me 
 to come here, and in so doing, acted as be thought 
 in obedience to God's high command; and in 
 obedience to what I understood to be the manifested 
 will of heaven I came. I am not an intruder. 1 left 
 all that man can hold dear, in respectful estimation 
 and the sympathies of friendship; and came to this 
 place, expecting the wnrm bosom and surrounding 
 arms of this, my venerable brother." All I shall say 
 is, that my reception was not such as 1 had anticipat- 
 ed. 1 regret exceedingly that I am compelled by a 
 sense of duty to refer to the manner in which I was 
 received and treated by him. And here let me say, 
 that if this matter had respected myself alone, as a 
 private individual, no mortal would ever have heard 
 a word upon the subject from my lips. But I am not 
 my own. My character and influence belong to 
 Christ. And if 1 have not done evil, I have no right 
 to permit them to be suspected. And if my brother, 
 with ever so good intentions, has done me wrong, if 
 he has brolien the arm of my influence as a man as- 
 sociated with an important public institution and with 
 the christian cause generally, it is due to that cause, 
 and to the responsible station I occupy, that I should 
 endeavor to save myself, although the mode is most 
 painful to me, as I fear it will prove to him. I would 
 thank the clerk to read a few extracts from the paper 
 Called the ' Standard,' a religious periodical publish- 
 ed in this city. The articles are subscribed with the 
 initia's J. L. W. 
 
 [Some difficulty occurring in turning to the extracts, 
 Dr. Beecher waived his call for the reading of them, 
 and proceeded with the body of his defence.] 
 
 If Dr. Wilson, after having invited me to settle in 
 this city became possessed of information, which led 
 him to believe that I ouglit not to accept the call 
 which had been put into my hands, christian courtesy 
 and sincerity required of him that he should inform 
 me of such change in liis opinion, and frankly avow 
 the intended change of his course in regard to me. If 
 he had done so, I would have gone to him and wept 
 upon his bosom in view of such openness and in- 
 tegrity. But he never did it. When he opposed my 
 admission into the presbytery, I expressed my con- 
 fidence that 1 could explain my views and doctrinal 
 opinions satisfactorily to him; and we had an inter- 
 locutory meeting of presbytery for that purpose. But 
 it did not resuU as I had expected. After that, I 
 told Dr, Wilson repeatedly that lie rnisiinderstood 
 my views in respect to original sin. For I peifectly 
 well knew that I held opinions on that subject which 
 he thought 1 did not hold; and on the co ilrary that I 
 did not hold certain other opinions which he thought 
 I did hold. And I asked him, whether it would not 
 1)0 better for us mutually to explain, and endeavor to 
 come to a satisfnctory understanding, than at our 
 time of life to agitate the community with controver- 
 sy and run the risk of breaking up the peace of the 
 church. Dr. Wilson replied, that when men had 
 reached our period of life, their opinions were sufli- 
 cicntly known; and he has never permitted mc tp 
 
 enjoy the opportunity of one word of explanation 
 from that time to this. Now I freely admit that he 
 had a perfect right to change his opinion in regard to 
 me, and the expediency of my settlement here. But 
 he had not a right, in utter recklessness of my per- 
 sonal feelings and the impairing of my ministerial 
 usefulness, to drag me before the public, at my time 
 of life, after I had served God and the church so 
 many years and must soon go to give in my account. 
 It was wrong, very wrong in my brother, to tear rae 
 up after this sort. 
 
 The doctrines charged upon me, are not recent. I 
 am not accused of apostacy from opinions once re- 
 ceived and professed; nor of innovalion in the intro- 
 duction of notions till now unheard of. The doctrines 
 I maintain existed in the Presbyterian church before 
 I was horn. T was ordained, on examination, and on 
 a profession of that same faith, for holding and pub- 
 lishing which I am now to be tried as a heretic. In 
 the presbytery which ordained me, there were men 
 of the old and of what was then called the new 
 divinity (though it was thirty-five years ago) and the 
 vote for my ordination was unanimous; and I was 
 accordingly ordained by the Presbytery of Long 
 Island. I do not say, thai I subscribed the Confession 
 of Faith at that time, under the declaration that it 
 contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 
 the truth. I was not prepared at that time to say so. 
 I had not then studied it enough, nor liad I been 
 enough charged with heresy to give keenness to my 
 investigation of its meaning. I signed it, as all other 
 ministers in the church sign it, as containing ' the 
 systematic view of the truths revealed in the word of 
 God,' and I subscribed it sincerely. 
 
 The doctrines on which I am accused are not 
 matters of mere metaphysical speculation; but 
 they arc truths of which I tind it necessary to 
 make a constant use in the performance of my 
 pastoral and ministerial duties; and which of 
 all others I have found efficacious in producing 
 conviction of sin and the conversion of men's 
 souls to God. It has no doubt been necessary 
 to guard against the perversion o/ these doc- 
 trines, as it is in regard to all other doctrines: 
 for as Horace says: 'if the vessel be not clean, 
 whatever you pour into it will turn to vinegar.' 
 But ministers, surely, are not responsible for all 
 that perversion of the truth they preach, of 
 which sinners are constantly guilty. I do not 
 regard myself as standing here as an insulate 
 ed individual suspected of heresy. I do not be- 
 lieve I am suspected of heresy, nor ever have 
 been to any considerable extent. I do not 
 feel as if I stood here alone, to be sifted and 
 scrutinized to see whether I am worthy of a, 
 standing in the church, or ought to be excommu- 
 nicated as a heretic. 1 am one of many, who be- 
 lievs the same doctrines that I do. And if any 
 man shall be enabled to make the truths of 
 the gospel tell with greater effect on the 
 hearts and consciences of -sinners than I ha\e 
 made them tell, I will bless God for it. No 
 man shall be envied by me because his. ministry 
 has been more successful than my own. My 
 heart, I trust, will ever be a stranger to any sufli 
 feelings. 
 
37 
 
 The charges against me are heresy, slander, 
 and hypocrisy; but they all turn on the charge 
 of heresy. For if the doctrines I teach are ac- 
 cording to the word of God and the Confession 
 of Faith, then I am neither a slanderer nor a 
 hypocrite. It is said that I have professed to 
 agree with the standards of our church, and 
 yet know that profession'to be false : while I, on 
 the contrary, say that I do concur with those 
 standards as I understand them. If I have mis- 
 taken their meaning still the charge is not sus- 
 tained. Ah ! Sir, there must be some eye which 
 can look in here (laying his- hand on his bosom) 
 or there must be some clear evidence upon the 
 outside, before it may be said that I have 
 told a lie. I said that I believed on farther 
 inquiry, and I believe it now, that on the points 
 in controversy, our confession of faith contains 
 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth. If I was guilty of hypocrisy in making 
 that declaration before the synod. I now repeat 
 the offence. I may find out that on some 
 
 foinfs I have mistaken its meaning: and if I do, 
 will say so. But I am honest in my past and 
 present declarations. 
 
 The topics of alleged heresy respect 
 1st. The foundation of moral obligation; or 
 the natural ability of man as a free agent, and 
 subject of moral government, to obey the gos- 
 pel. 
 
 2d. The mor.il inability of man, as a sinner 
 entirely depraved, to anything which includes 
 evangelical obedience and secures pardon and 
 eternal life; as consisting entirely in his will or 
 obstinate, voluntary aversion from God and the 
 gospel. 
 
 3d. The oi-igin of this moral impotency; or 
 the relation between Adam and his posterity, 
 and the effect on them of his sin. 
 
 ■llh. The propeities of all personal sin as 
 voluntary. 
 
 5th. The eiBcicnt and instrumental cause, and 
 the consequences of regeneration. 
 
 6tli. The nature of cliristian character as 
 complex or perfect. 
 
 My first reply then to these several charges 
 of doctrinal heresy, is that what I have believ- 
 ed and have tauglit on these points through all 
 my public ministry, is neither heresy nor error; 
 but is in accordance with the word of God and 
 the Confession of Faith. 
 
 My second reply is, that if in any respect they 
 differ from what shall be decided to be the true 
 exposition of the Confession of Faith, they 
 include nothing at variance with the funda- 
 mental articles of the system of doctrine it 
 contains; and are such as have characterized the 
 members of the Presbyterian church from the 
 l)eginning, and have, been recognized in va- 
 rious forms as not inconsistent wit!> subscrip- 
 tion to the confession, and an honest and honora- 
 ble standing in the church. 
 
 Before I proceed, it will be necessary to say a 
 word about creed?, and subscription to creeds, 
 
 and the rights of private interpretation and free 
 inquiry. 
 
 And first, they arc not a substitute for the 
 Bible; but a concise epitome of what is believed 
 to be the meaning of the Bible. 
 
 2d. They originate from the discrepancies of 
 human opinion, and the necessity of nuited 
 views within certain limits, in order to compla- 
 cency, confidence and practical co-operation. 
 Generally they do not aim at a verbal and exact 
 and universal agreement; but so far as affords 
 evidence of Christian character, and lays a foun- 
 dation for united action. The attempt of uni- 
 versal and exact conformity must spilt the 
 church up into small and consequently feeble 
 and impotent departments, and of course 
 weaken her associated power and moral in- 
 fluence. 
 
 Whatever differences of opinion do not des- 
 troy the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, 
 and are consistent with fellowship and co-opera- 
 tion, may be tolerated; and hence you find that 
 in proportion as you insist upon specific ac- 
 curacy, you render your denomination small 
 and insignificant, in comparison with the num- 
 bers and the wealth, and the amount of in- 
 fluence and moral power in society which it 
 ought to embrace; and thus prevent that momen- 
 tum for good which the collected body ought to 
 exert. The true policy to be pursued, is to push 
 the requirement of conformity only so far, as 
 will enable the masses of men combined 
 under the same profession of truth, to be large 
 and weighty, to have power and effect in giving 
 a healthy tone to public sentiment, and carry for- 
 ward the great designs which the gospel was in- 
 tended to accomplish in the world. 
 
 3d. Churches of every name are voluntary 
 associations, and on the principles of civil and 
 religious liberty, have a right to agree in re- 
 spect to the doctrine and discipline, by which 
 they will promote their own edification. The 
 exclusion is no encroachment on the rights of 
 others. Those who differ from me in sentiment, 
 have no right to be judges of my liberty, or to 
 encroach on my comfort, edification or useful ac- 
 tion; but may seek their own edification with 
 others who agree with them in their own way. 
 This is the origin of different denominations; 
 and indispensable in order to practical and 
 efficient action. 
 
 4lh. The exposition of our Confession of 
 Faith appertains of necessity in the first instance, 
 to those who subscribe it, and are bound by it. 
 Each subscriber must, for himself, attach some 
 definite import to the terms, and all have an 
 equal right to their own interpretation in the first 
 instance; and no individual has any authority 
 to decide, eflicaciously, in respect to his brother, 
 what is the plain and obvious sense. But in cases 
 of difference attended with inconvenience, it is 
 to be referred to the higher judicatories, and 
 their decision settles the construction: just as 
 every man judges for himself of the laws and of 
 
38 
 
 his own rights of propepty, until discrepant claims 
 demand a reference to the courts for an authori- 
 tative exposition of the law. The decision of 
 the highest judicatory is the meaning of the 
 Bible, according to the intent of the church, 
 and is obligatory. I certainly have no right, 
 in the exercise of my philosophy or biblical ex- 
 position, or free inquiry, to set it aside. If I 
 change my opinions so as to interfere with 
 the bond of union, it is my right to leave the 
 church; but I have no right, by my liberty, 
 to make inroads on the peace and edification 
 of others. 
 
 In respect to the right of private interpreta- 
 tion in the first instance, I presume I must have 
 misunderstood my brother Wilson, when he says, 
 the Confession is not to be explained. That is 
 popery. The papists have no right of private 
 judgment. They must believe as the pope and 
 council believe, and may believe no otherwise. 
 They are forbidden to exercise their own under- 
 standing, and must receive words and doc- 
 trines in the sense prescribed and prepared 
 for them. I cannot suppose my brother so holds; 
 but that when he subcribes the confession, he 
 subscribes to what, at the time, he understands 
 to be its meaning. Who else is to judge for 
 him? Is the pope to be called in? Is he to ask 
 a general council what the confession means? 
 does he not look at it with his own eyes, and in- 
 terpret it with his own understanding? But as I 
 understand my brother, he insists that there is to 
 be no explanation; but that every expression 
 of doctrinal sentiment is to be placed side by 
 side with the confession, and. measured by it: 
 just as you would put two tables side by side to see 
 if they are of the same size. You are to try the 
 sermon and the confession by the ear, and see 
 if they sound alike. If they do not, the sermon 
 is heretical, and the author a heretic. Can this 
 be his meaning? 
 
 It is admitted that the church is a voluntary associ- 
 ation. None are obliged to join it. But under af- 
 finity of views and sentiments, a number of individu- 
 als come together to form themselves into one body. 
 How are they to find out what opinions they do hold? 
 It must be by giving an accountof what each man un- 
 derstands to be religious truth, .revealed from God. 
 If they have no standards they proceed to form one; 
 or if one has been formed, they look over it together 
 to see whether they agree, and if they do agree, they 
 make this standard the symbol of their faith, and thus 
 become afiiliated with other churches holding the 
 same opinions. 1 admit that when they have thus 
 examined, explained, and assented to- a common 
 standard, they are bound by it; and if any one alters 
 his opinion afterwards to such an extent that the 
 community becomes dissatisfied; to such an extent 
 as to break the band of union, and be unable any 
 longer to walk with his brethren, he must withdraw ; 
 orif he refuses to withdraw, he must be put out. In 
 joining the Presbyterian church, each individual mem- 
 ber, unless he comes in as an ignoramus, without" 
 knowing what he professes, does explain her stand- 
 ards for himself. He must do it, and he has a right 
 to do it, unless his joining the church means nothing 
 
 and professes nothing. If it does mean anything it 
 must mean what he intends it to mean : and of this 
 he must, in the first instance, be himself the judge. 
 This is the sixth time, I have endeavored to explain 
 my meaning on this subject; and I have been con- 
 stantly told that I am teaching independency. I deny 
 that it is independency, and insist that it is presby- 
 terianismand common sense. I say that each minis- 
 ter and each member has as good a right to his own 
 exposition of the common standard as another has; 
 and so I told my brother Wilson. I have as good a 
 right to call you a heretic, because your exposition of 
 the confession does not agree with my view of it, as 
 you have to call me a heretic, because my under- 
 standing of the confession does not agree with yours. 
 You say that I am a heretic, according to the plain 
 and obvious meaning of our standards. But your 
 'plain and obvious meaning,' is not my 'plain and 
 obvious meaning;' and who is to be umpire between 
 us? The constitution lias provided one. My brother 
 Wilson and I must go to the Presbytery. I have no 
 right to traduce my brother, and call him a hereric, 
 on the authority of my private personal intepretation 
 of an instrument we both profess to embrace; nor 
 has he any right, before I have been heard and judged 
 by competent authority, to vilify my character, to at- 
 tack my good name, to drag me into the public prints 
 and to use his long-established and broadly-extended 
 influence to bring up a fog of suspicion around me. 
 For what is the charecter of a minister of Jesus 
 Christ? It is like the character of a female: liable 
 to be tainted and ruined by the breath of a slander. 
 What is more natural to mankind than suspicion? — 
 How ready men are to entertain an uncharitable sug- 
 gestion or an evil report, come from what source it 
 may! But when suggestions not only, but direct as- 
 sertions, proceed not from an obscure or suspected 
 source, but come from years and experience, and high 
 standing and wide-spread influence, what stranger 
 can come and hope to stand before it? In the form 
 of responsible accusation it might be met. But who 
 can stand before the force of slander? 
 
 Sir, I made no statements about % loss of reputa- 
 tion ; I simply told the truth in respect to what this 
 my brother has done, and the manner in which he 
 treated me, after having first invited me into a strange 
 place. I came here on his invitation, an entire 
 stranger; and instead of receiving me into the open 
 arms of brotherly affection, instead of welcoming and 
 sustaining and strengthening me, as a fellow-labor- 
 er in a common cause; instead of conciliating tho 
 public confidence ; instead of soothing and comfort- 
 ing, and seeking to encourage and warm my heart, 
 in a great and arduous undertaking, in an untried 
 field, he did what in him lay to weaken my hands, to 
 discourage ray heart, and to multiply a thousand-fold 
 those difficulties which were inseparable from ray. 
 situation, and thus to thwart every good and holy end 
 for which I believed that God had called me into this 
 western world. He had a perfect right, as I have 
 freely admitted, on proper evidence, to change the 
 good opinion he had at first entertained of me, but 
 then he should have come lo me in frankness, lie 
 should have taken me by the hand, and he should 
 have said to me : 'My brother, I have changed iny 
 opinion in respect to your doctrinal views; I believe 
 them to be essentially erroneous; and I must, in the 
 discharge of a good conscience' — do what? Go to 
 the newspapers? assail you before the public? re- 
 
39 
 
 present you asaherelic7 cut up your influence? tie 
 your hands from doing good? No; I must — 'bring 
 you to the presbytery. I must prefer charges against 
 you ; and I must have a decision in respect to the 
 opinions you hold.' Had he done this, had my brother 
 met me so, I would have lionored him, I would have 
 wept upon his bosom for his brotherly frankness 
 blended with unblencliing integrity. 
 
 [Dr. B. was here sensibly affected, and it cost him 
 an effort to proceed.] 
 
 And now, as to what has been said about perpetual 
 quarrels in this Presbytery, I deny the fact. We have 
 had no quarrels. There has not an unkind word 
 passed between my brotlicr Wilson and myself, nor 
 have I any knowledge that he entertains towards me 
 the least personal animosity; although I admit that 
 when two walk so contrary to each other, they are 
 in danger of it. Our differences are ecclesiastical 
 only; and I am always wounded, when I hear it said 
 that we have quarreled. When I came here, and 
 perceived that ministerial disputation had got into the 
 public papers, my whole influence was exerted to 
 silence the paper controversy; and it was done. And 
 although there was much in the opposing paper that 
 was grievous to be borne, although advantage was 
 taken of the prejudices which prevailed in the West 
 against men coining from the eastern part of the 
 union, and although strenuous efforts were employed 
 to stir up that feeling, and direct it against myself and 
 sny ministry, and although broad caricatures were 
 given of the doctrines I held and openly taught, I 
 never wrote so much as a line or a word in reply; but 
 when I discovered that the chafing of mind inevitably 
 produced by these things, was finding its way into my 
 church; when 1 saw the fire rapidly spreading and 
 like to break out, and to embroil my brother's people 
 and mine in open animosities, my friends know that I 
 prepared and preached two sermons on the obligation 
 of christian meekness; and they can testify that the 
 effort was blessed of God, and that there was a great 
 calm. It was to be sure impossible but that some ex- 
 citement should exist, when tlie ministers of thi two 
 churches stood in such an attitude toward each other; 
 but from that time the amount was very small and in- 
 considerable; and the rumor that wc,in this city, were 
 together by tlio ears, contending and fighting and 
 quarreling, was false and unfounded. All who are 
 present can bear me witness that no such spirit pre- 
 vailed. The people were quiet, the ministers were 
 personally courteous; all was visible peace until the 
 time came round for the presbytery to assemble. — 
 But no sooner was it met, than the angels might weep. 
 Brotherly confidence had fled. Thai sweet and fra- 
 ternal harmony, which ever ought to mark the gath- 
 erings of Christ's ministerial servants, was gone. — 
 The breath of the Almighty was not upon us. The 
 saints were not refreshed; sinnei's were not converted. 
 Our coming together was not for the better, but al- 
 ways for the worse. But now I pray God, that the re- 
 sult of this examination may be such as to put an end 
 forever to this state of things: that it may issue in re- 
 establishing our mutual confidence in each other's 
 soundness and integrity; or, if I am a heretic, that 
 the fact may be proved, and I may go to my own 
 place. 
 
 But to return to the question respecting the right 
 of private interpretation. If two ministers do not 
 agree in tiicir understanding of the Confession of 
 Fuitli, let them not contend and call hard names and 
 
 bite and devour each other; but let them go before 
 the Presbytery, and if not satisfied there, let them go 
 to the Synod; and if the sentence of the Synod can- 
 not quiet their minds, let them carry up the question to 
 the General Assembly, and then the man who is 
 wrong, and perseveres in being wrong, must go out 
 of the church. We are not without remedy. The 
 constitution has provided for us a competent tribunal. 
 The ministers who differ, come before that tribunal 
 on equal ground; the cause is beard, and the question 
 settled; and he who will not submit to the sentence, 
 must leave the body. It is, as I said, just like the 
 rights of property. Two men think that they own a 
 certain portion of lands or goods, and both suppose 
 that they have good and valid reasons for that opinion ; 
 but instead of reviling each, or coming to blows, they 
 take their difference before the court; and each has 
 a right to carry it up by appeal, till he reaclws the 
 tribunal of last resort; and there the matter is set- 
 tled. Now I hope that on this subject I shall never 
 be misunderstood again. 1 have done my best to make 
 my meaning plain; and if I am still misunderstood, I 
 must despair of ever being able to remove the misun- 
 derstanding. This is my sixth public effort to do 
 so. If this does not succeed, I must give up the at- 
 tempt. 
 
 The question now at issue turns then upon an ex- 
 position of the Confession of Faith, not merely as a 
 human formula,but as our admitted epitome of what 
 the Bible teaches. I am charged with a fundamental 
 departure from the true intent of the Confession. I 
 claim that I understand and interpret it truly; or that 
 if there be any variation, it affects only such points of 
 difference as have in every form been decided to bo 
 consistent with edification and an honest subscription 
 and an honorable standing in the chujch. The con- 
 fession is not a mere human composition. The state- 
 ment indeed is made by man; but it is the statement 
 of what God has said, and is to us wiio receive it, as 
 God's word. Dr. Wilson has said, that we are bound 
 to abide by it so far as it is consistent with God's 
 word; but we have settled that, in receiving it as the 
 symbol of our faith. We profess that it is in all its 
 parts according to God's word. What- is its true 
 sense is, in case of dispute, to be settled by the courts 
 above; but we have agreed to submit to it and bo 
 bound by it; and if we do not like the final decision of 
 the supreme judicatory, no course is left but to go out 
 of the church. For 1 deny and repudiate all right of 
 private judgment in opposition to the public decision 
 of the whole church. 
 
 The whole of the argument on which I am now to 
 enter, is an argument that has respect to the true 
 exposition of our Confession of Faith. The argument 
 will take a wide range; but it is all directed to that 
 point. And I am sorry that the point on which the 
 whole turns, my brother Wilson did not attempt to 
 explain. He assumed that there is but one meaning 
 to the term ability. This I deny. I hold, on the con- 
 trary, that it has two meanings as well in the Bible 
 as in our standards. Ho admits only one. His labor, 
 therefore, has been labor lost as it respects me. He 
 admits one sense of the terra; but if our standards 
 admit two, then he has got but one part of the truth; 
 while I contend that I have got both parts of it; and 
 that tlierefore his argument falls short of the case. It 
 is not ray purpose to declaim on a topic like this. I 
 feel that the providence of God has brought both my 
 brother and myself into circumstances of the deepest 
 
40 
 
 responsibility. * It is my hope that this trial will be 
 made the occasion,in His hand, of dissipating mutual 
 misapprehension, and of bringing forth his own pre- 
 cious truth into clearer light and establishing it in a 
 more triumphant and unanswerable manner. 1 will 
 not disguise the fact that I hope to convince those 
 who have hitherlo thought with my brother. I will 
 neither believe nor insinuate that the minds of this 
 presbytery are so biassed that they cannot give an 
 upright judgment. I do not think Dr. Wilson himself 
 meant to convey such an idea. I do expect to 
 convince every minister and every elder, and I am 
 almost sure I shall do it. I rest not this confidence 
 upon myself, but upon the cause I advocate, 1 cherish 
 the hope, because I know what truth is and what hu- 
 man nature is J and I am perfectly sure, that when 
 the question comes to be fairly stated and distinctly 
 understood, there is no man here who will say I am 
 guilty of heresy. I will even go further than this, and 
 say that I expect to convince my brother Wilson him- 
 self; and I have told him so. Oh! if he would but 
 have given me a chance to do so two years ago. How 
 would our hands have been mutually strengthened, 
 and how might the cause of truth and righteousness 
 have been advanced by our united efforts. I mourn 
 to think how we have both suffered from the want of 
 such an explanation. I grieve to reflect u,pon the puU- 
 iag down and the holding back, and all the want of 
 cordial and brotherly cooperation. And I do trust that 
 God has biought us to this point, .that all misunder- 
 standing may be cleared up, and all misrepresentation 
 forever cease. I shall labor for this end, as hard as 
 ever I labored with a convicted sinner, to bring him 
 to the Lord my Master; and I hope I shall succeed. 
 
 I am very sensible that I have undertaken a great 
 work, in attempting to convince my brother on this 
 subject. And I am aware that it is incumbent on me 
 10 go to the business wittingly; and I mean to. The 
 task of expounding important doctrinal truth is not a 
 light extempore affair. Just exposition is regulated 
 by fixed laws, laws as fixed as those which regulate 
 the motions of the universe; because they are found- 
 ed in truth, and in the nature of things. And what 
 are these rules and principles? 
 
 1st. The first is that no writing or instrument of any 
 kind is to be expounded in contradiction to itself. So 
 that if there are two possible interpretations, that 
 which harmonizes the instrument with itself is to be 
 received as the true interpretation. For it is not 
 to be presumed that a company of pious and sensible 
 men with full deliberation and under the highest re- 
 sponsibility, will draw up a paper which contradicts it- 
 self. They may through infirmity do this, but no such 
 presumption is to be admitted, a priori. 
 
 2d. The instrument is to be explained according to 
 the known nature and attributes of the subject. 
 Thus when man is spoken of, in terms borrowed from 
 the natural world, and these terms, literally received, 
 would imply impolency, we are not to carry over their 
 physical meaning into the moral kingdom. When 
 God says, he will take away the heart of stone, if he 
 was speaking of a mountain, we might well under- 
 stand that he meant to remove the granite which 
 was in the midst of it. But when he applies this lan- 
 guage to amoral being, to a free agent, the lan- 
 guage is not to be taken as literal but as figurative ; 
 and as meaning to take away a moral quality, name- 
 ly, hatred to God and aversion to his law. 
 
 3d. The instrument is to be construed with refe- 
 
 rence to controversies and import of fefms which pre- 
 vailed at the time it was written, and the meaning of 
 theological technics employed in them. 
 
 Dr. Wilson has gone to Johnson's dictionary to find 
 out the meaning of theological terms. But he ought 
 to have remembered, that there are few dictionaries 
 which undertake to define the meanmg of either the- 
 ological or of law terms. The technics of one arc as 
 much out of the ordinary road as those of the other. 
 Physicians would not expect to fi^nd in an ordinary 
 dictionary the definition of medical words, and the 
 same holds true of every profession. They all have 
 technics of their own, for which you go in vain to a 
 general di^jionary. I say you must go to the time 
 when the instrument was written, and inquire what 
 was then the import of the technical words and phra- 
 ses employed in the instrument to be expounded. So 
 if we would understand the Confession of Faith, we 
 must find out in what ^ense the words ' guilt' and 
 'punishment' were employed by the theologians of 
 that day. For a right explication of those terms will 
 go far towards settling the meaning of the whole Con- 
 fession. Dr. Wilson cannot but know, that lan- 
 guage never stands still,'because society never stands 
 still. The meaning of a word at this day, is not ne- 
 cessarily the same with the meaning gf that word two 
 hundred years ago; and so every sound lawyer will tell 
 you. T/iei/ have to go back to the days of Judge 
 Hale, and Queen Elizabeth. It will not do to go to 
 Webster's dictionary at this day, if we would rightly 
 interpret ancient statutes ; no more will it do in respect 
 to the Confession of Faith, 
 
 4. It must be interpreted by a comparison with an- 
 terior and ootemporaneous creeds and authors: in a 
 word, by the theological usus loquendi of the age; be- 
 cause this is according to analogy. The reformers 
 were all the same sort of men; they were all, with 
 some slight variation, placed in substantially the same 
 circumstances, and it is wonderful to see how much 
 alike the creeds adopted in different parts of Christen- 
 dom were. Now if the ancient meaning of terms, be 
 in any case different from the meanings of the same 
 terms in our day, the ancient meaning cuts its way. 
 For our creeds were born of them. And that sense 
 of terms, which was the analogical meaning of those 
 who had all around them, the authors of cotempora- 
 neous creeds must be our guide in construction. 
 
 5. The instrument must be interpreted according 
 to the reigning philosophy of the day in which it was 
 written — and 
 
 6. According to the intuitive perceptions and the 
 common sense and consciousness of all mankind. 
 
 To illustrate the propriety of this rule, let me give 
 an example. I know that there is a propensity to re- 
 ject all philosophy, when we come to the subject of 
 creeds, and yet there.is not a human being, that does 
 not necessarily employ a philosophy of some sort, in 
 interpreting the bible — and in interpreting every creed 
 founded upon it. The New Testament cannot be 
 rightly understood without a knowledge of the philo- 
 sophy of the Gnostics. And in like- manner, a man 
 must know what was the philosophy of the Armin/'an 
 system, in order rightly to apprehend that portion of 
 the creed which relates to that subject. I will only 
 say, in respect to the intuitive perceptions of men as a 
 rule of exposition, that it is God who made men, and 
 that he made both their body and their mind; and the 
 bible, without entering on a system of pathology, eve- 
 rywhere takes it for granted, that God thoroughly uii- 
 
41 
 
 derstands human nature. And here I will observe In- 
 cidentally, that it is a good way, and one of the best 
 ways to study mental philosophy, to collect from the 
 bible, that which it assumes; and this was the only way 
 in wliicli I first studied it. In conclusion, I observe 
 that to enter upon the Confession of Faith, for the 
 purpose of exposition without these attendant lamps, 
 is to insure misinterpretation, and contention, and ev- 
 ery evil work. 
 
 Tiie first point on which I justify, as consistent with 
 the Confession of Faith, is that of natural ability, as 
 essential to moral obligation. The following extract 
 from my published discourse will make my views de- 
 finite and intelligible. In my sermon on 'The Faith 
 once delivered to the Saints,' I say: 
 
 The faith once delivered to the saints, includes, it 
 is believed, among other doctrines, the following: 
 
 That men are free agents, in the possession of such 
 faculties, and placed in such circumstances, as render 
 it practicable for them to do whatever God require^, 
 reasonable that he should require it, and fit that he 
 should inflict, literally, the entire penalty of dis- 
 obedience. Such ability is here intended, as layg a 
 perfect foundation for government by law, and for 
 rewards and punishments according to deeds. 
 
 That the divine law requires love to God with all 
 the heart, and impartial love for men; together wiih 
 certain overt duties to God and men, by which this 
 love is to be expressed ; and that this law is supported 
 by the sanctions of eternal life and eternal death. 
 
 That the ancestors of our race violated this law— 
 that, in some way, as a consequence of their apostacy, 
 all men, as soon as they became capable of accounta- 
 ble action, do, of their own accord, most freely and 
 most wickedly, wiliiliold from God the supreme love, 
 and from man the impartial love whicli the law re- 
 quires, besides violating many of its practical precepts: 
 and that the disobedience of the heart, wliich the law 
 requires, has ceased entirely from the whole race of 
 man, &c. 
 
 Ill my sernnon on the 'Native Character of 
 Man,' my M-ords arc these: 
 
 A depraved nature is by many understood to mean, 
 a nature excluding clioice, and producing sin by an 
 unavoidable necessity; as fountains of water pour forth 
 their streams, or trees produce tlieir fruit, or animals 
 propagate their kind. The mistake lies in supposing 
 that the nature of matter and mind are the same : 
 whereas they are entirely different. The nature of 
 matter excludes perception, understanding, and 
 choice; but the nature of mind includes them all. 
 Neither a holy nor a depraved nature are possible, 
 without understanding, conscience, and clioice. To 
 say of an accountable creature, tliat he is depraved by 
 nature, is only to say, that, rendered capable by his 
 Maker of obedience, he disobeys from the commence- 
 ment of his accounlability. To us it does not belong 
 to say when accountability commences, and to what 
 extent it exists in the early stages of life. This is 
 tho prerogative of the Almighty. Doubtless there is a 
 time when man becomes accountable, and the law of 
 God obligatory: and what we have proved is, that, 
 whenever die time arrives that it becomes the duty of 
 roan to love God more than the creiiture, ho does in 
 fact love tho creature more than God — does most 
 freely and most wickedly sot his affisctions on things 
 below, and refuse to set them on things above, and 
 that his depravity consists in this atato of the affec- 
 tions. For this universal concurrence of man in pre- 
 
 6 
 
 ferring the creature to the Creator, thcro is doubtless 
 some cause or reason : but it cannot be a cause of 
 which disobedience is an involuntary and unavoidable 
 result. Ability to obey, is indispensable to moral 
 obligation; and the moment any cause should render 
 love to God impossible, that moment the obligation to 
 love would cease, and man could no more liavc a 
 depraved nature, than any other animal. A depraved 
 nature can no more exist without voluntary agency, 
 and accountability, than a material nature can exist 
 without solidity anl extension. Whatever effect, 
 therefore, the fall of man may have had on his race, it 
 has not had tlie effect to render it impossible for man 
 to love God religiously; and whatever may be the early 
 constitution of man, there is nothing in it, and nothing 
 withheld from it, which renders disobedience unavoid- 
 able, and obedience impossible. The first sin in 
 every man is free, and might have been, and ought to 
 have been, avoided. At the lime, whenever it is, 
 that it first becomes the duty of man to be religious, 
 he refuses, and refuses in the possession of ^uch 
 faculties as render religion a reasonable service, and 
 him inexcusable, and justly punishable. The supreme 
 love of the world is a matter of choice, formed under 
 such circumstances, as that man might have chosen 
 otherwise, and ought to have chosen otherwise, and 
 is therefore exposed to punishment for this his volun- 
 tary and inexcusable disobedience. If therefore, man 
 is depraved by nature, it is a voluntary and accountable 
 nature which is depraved, exercised in disobedience to 
 the law of God. This is according to the Bible — 'They 
 have all gone aside,' — each man has been voluntary 
 and active in his transgression. ' Tlioy go astray aa 
 soon as they be born ;' that is in early life : — how early, 
 so as to deserve punishment, God only knows. ' Tho 
 fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.' Every 
 imagination or exercise of man's heart is evil. Na- 
 tive DEPn.VVITV, THEN, IS A STATE OF TUE AFFECTIONS, 
 IN A VOLUNTVnr AfCOUNTABLE CREATURE, AT VARI- 
 ANCE WITH DIVINE REUUIREJIENT FROJI TUE BEGINXINO 
 OF ACX'OUNTAWLITY. 
 
 In my 'Letter to Dr. Woods,' I use this lan- 
 guage: 
 
 Our first parents were in the beginning holy, after 
 tlie image of God, to the exclusion of all sin; but by 
 transgression they lost all rectitude, and became aa 
 depraved, as they had been holy. 
 
 In consequence of the sin of Adam, all Iiis posterity, 
 from the commencement of their moral existence, are 
 destitute of holiness and prone to evil; so that the 
 atoning death of Clirist, and the special, renovating 
 influence of the Spirit are indispensable to the salva- 
 tion of any human being. 
 
 The obligation of intelligent beings to obey God is 
 founded on his rights as Creator; on his perfect char- 
 acter, worthy of all love; on the holiness, justice, and 
 goodness of his law; and on the intellectual and moral 
 faculties which he has given his subjects, commensu- 
 rate with his requirements. 
 
 'God hath endued the will of man with that natural 
 liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute 
 necessity of nature determined to good or evil.' 
 (Con. Faith, ch. ix. sec. 1.) 
 
 Man having been corrupted by the fall, sins volun- 
 tarily, not with reluctance or constraint; with the 
 strongest propensity of disposition, not with violent 
 coercion; with the bias of his own passions, not with 
 external compulsion. 
 
4a 
 
 The Presbytery here adjourned and was 
 closed with prayer. 
 
 Saturday morning, June 13. — Dr. Beecher 
 resumed his defence, and addressed the Presby- 
 tery nearly as follows: 
 
 I am now prepared to attend to the exposltiorl 
 of the Confession of Faith, in regard to the doc- 
 trine of man's natural ability and his moral 
 inability to obey the gospel and keep the divine 
 law; and in doing so, I shall have regard to those 
 principles and rules of exposition which I have 
 already laid down, viz. That the instrument is 
 not to be expounded in contradiction to itself; 
 that it is to be explained according to the known 
 nature and attributes of the subject, with refer- 
 ence to existing controversies; according to the 
 import of the terms when it was written; by a 
 comparison with anterior and contemporaneous 
 creeds and authors. with reference to the rising 
 philosophy; and with regard to the intuitive per- 
 ceptions and common sqnse and consciousness of 
 -all niankind. 
 
 The position I have laid down, in my public 
 teaching, and which is made the basis of the 
 accusation on which I am to be tried, is, that man 
 possesses the natural ability of a free agent; an 
 ability fully adequate to the performance of all 
 Ihedulies which God has required of him, and 
 that such a natural ability is indispensable to 
 moral obligation. This is my heresy ; and, there- 
 fore, sound doctrine, standing in direct con- 
 trariety to it, must be, that God does require of 
 his creature, man, that which it is naturally im- 
 possible for him to do. Here we are at issue. 
 Dr. Wilson asserts that man has no such natural 
 ability, and that because I maintain he has, I am 
 a heretic. I have appealed to the Confession of 
 Faith, and to that confession let us go. I say, 
 that the confession teaches the natural ability of 
 man, as a qualified subject of moral government, 
 and justly accountable in his own person for all 
 his deeds. And further, that the confession 
 teaches, with equal clearness, man's moral 
 inability. By natural ability, I mean, all those 
 powers of mind, which enter into the nature of 
 a cause, with reference to its sufficiency to pro- 
 duce its effect, and by moral inability, I mean an 
 inability of the will; not man's constitutional 
 powers, but his use of them, so far as the will is 
 concerned — and I say that the confession teaches 
 man's natural ability and his moral inability, i. c. 
 the aversion of his will. Not a natural impossi- 
 bility to will, but an unwillingness to choose as 
 God requires. 
 
 In confirmation of the first position, viz.- that 
 the. confession teaches man's natural ability, I 
 refer to chap. ix. sec. 1; and what .does it 
 say? 
 
 'God hath endued the will of man with that natural 
 liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute 
 necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.' 
 
 Now if this declaration has respect toman, as 
 arace, if the term man, as here employed, is 
 generic, including Adam and all his posterity, 
 
 then the passage quoted settles the qnestion. — 
 The whole turns on, what is the meaning of the 
 word man? Because, if it means man as fallen, 
 if it means Adam's posterity, my apponentis 
 gone. The groand is swept from under him; 
 he must prove that man means Adam, and Adam 
 only, or else the Confession is against him. Now, 
 what is the subject of the chapter to which this 
 section belongs? It respects free will, i. e. free 
 will in the theological sense of that phrase, as the 
 doctrine was discussed between Augustin and 
 Pelagius, and its whole language has respect to 
 man in the generic sense. That this is so, is 
 plain, from the Scriptural references, quoted in 
 support of the positions taken. If the declara- 
 tions, of the chapter had respect solely to Adam^ 
 the Scriptural references would be to Mam; but 
 these references, without exception, do not re- 
 fer to him, but do, refer to his fallen posterity. 
 They drive the nail and clinch it; see what 
 they are — 
 
 ' But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away 
 of his own lust, and enticed.' — James i. 14. 
 
 'I call heaven and earth to record this day aga,inst 
 you, that I Iiave set before you life and death, blessing 
 &ncl cursing; therefore chopse life, that both thou and 
 thy seed may live.' — Deut. xxx. 19. 
 
 These are the Scriptural proofs, selected and 
 adduced by the Assembly of Divines, as exhib- 
 iting the Scripture authority on which the de- 
 clarations in the chapter are made; and what are 
 they ? I^isten to them — 
 
 'Gorl hath endued the will of man with that natural 
 liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute 
 necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.' — ■ 
 Con. ofF.ix. 1. 
 
 If this means Adam, all I say is, that they 
 made a most wonderful mistake in the references 
 quoted. 
 
 I now take the question as settled, that 'man' 
 here means man as a race, and that ' will' here 
 means the will of man as a race; and it is what I 
 hold, and what all the church hold, and it is the 
 fair meaning of the Confession. What follows 
 in the next section, with respect to man in a 
 state of innocency, is a confirmation and an il- 
 lustration of the doctrine as thus explained. 
 
 'Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and 
 power to will and to do that which is good and well 
 pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might 
 fall from it.'— Con. of F. ix. 2. i. e. his free agency 
 included the natural power of choosing right or of 
 choosing wrong. 
 
 Adam had the moral ability to stand, and he 
 had it in a state of balanced power, in which he 
 was capable of choosing, and liable to choose 
 either way. 
 
 Then comes section the third, which contains 
 a description of the change induced by the fall, 
 a change which respected the will of man, not 
 his constitutional powers; a change in the yplun- 
 tary use of his will. 
 
 'Man, by his fall into a stale of sin, hath wholly lost' 
 Lost! Lost what? Lost his will as endued by 
 
43 
 
 his Maker, with natural liberty, so that it cannot 
 be forced? No, not a word of it. It was not 
 that. It was something else he lost; and there- 
 upon turns the question between us. The Con- 
 fession says: 
 
 'lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompa- 
 nying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogetber 
 averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by 
 his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare 
 himself thereun to.' 
 
 He lost 'all ability of will.' Does this mean 
 that, in respect to the power of choice, his will 
 fell into a state of natural inability ? Not at all. 
 He had the power of choice as much as ever. — 
 But he had lost all moral ability, that is inclina- 
 tion, to choose what was good. His will was 
 altogether averse from it. He was altogether 
 unwilling. Hefell intoan inabihty of will, i. e. 
 into unwillingness. This is the common use of 
 terms until this day. Moral inability means not 
 impossibility, but it means unwillingness. Man 
 became 'dead.' But how? Not in the annihil- 
 ation of his natural powers, not dead in the nat- 
 ural ability of his will, but dead in sin; so as 'not 
 to be able, by his own strength, to convert him- 
 self, or to prepare himself thereunto.' I say, 
 Amen! — this is my doctrine. The word 'able,' 
 and the word 'strength,' are both employed in a 
 moral sense, and in a moral sense only; and 
 thus interpreted, the Confession is perfectly con- 
 sistent with itself. 
 
 The fourth section of this chapter is a further 
 corroboration of the same position: 
 
 'When God converts the sinner, and translates him 
 into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural 
 bondage under sin, and by his grace alone, enables 
 him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually 
 good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining cor- 
 ruption, be doth not perfectly nor only will that 
 which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.' 
 
 Frees him from what' From his free agen- 
 cy? from the constitutional powers of his being? 
 No. Frees him from his bondage under sin, i. 
 e. from his moral inability. And how is he 
 freed? The Confession says it is by ^racc. — 
 Wonderful grace it would be, to restore his nat- 
 ural powers. One would think this was more 
 like justice than grace. But it is argued, that if 
 this bondage means mere obstinacy of will, man 
 would not need divine aid. Indeed, so far is 
 this from being true, that no creature does need 
 divine aid so much as a free agent obstinately 
 bent upon evil. My children were free agents, 
 but they needed aid, and had I not, by God's 
 help, made them both able and willing, they 
 never would have acquired respectability of char- 
 acter. None possess such a power of resistance, 
 as a free agent under moral inability. It is a 
 bias which he himself never will take away. — 
 God must deliver him; and every thing short of 
 divine aid, is short of his necessity. And men 
 are sometimes fully sensible of this. I have 
 heard of a man, under the power of the habit of 
 intemperance, and he cried out to his friends, 
 
 Help me! help me! wake me up! save me, or 
 1 fall ! The love of liquor had not destroyed his 
 natural ability. But he felt that his moral abili- 
 ty — his ability of will to resist temptation — was 
 gone. The distinction is plain and easy; and it 
 is one that we can all understand, in the every- 
 day affairs of life; and if we see our friends in 
 danger of being overcome by evil habit, we brace 
 them against its power; we perceive their mor- 
 al inability,and we bring them all the aid in our 
 power. The phrase, 'to incline and enable,' is 
 just as consistent with a moral inability as it is 
 with a natural. Our natural bondage is that in- 
 to which we are born by nature. Our constitu- 
 tional bias to evil is called original sin. And it 
 is grace, and grace alone, that enables a man to 
 relent and overcome it. This I believe ; this I 
 hold; this I have felt. The will will be inclined 
 to good alone, only when we reach the state of 
 glory. 
 
 This reasoning is corroborated by the doc- 
 trine of the Confession in respect to God's de- 
 crees. 
 
 'God from all eternity did, by the most wise and 
 holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably 
 ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby 
 neither is God the author of sin, noris violence offered 
 to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty of con- 
 tingency of second causes taken away, but rather es- 
 tablished.' 
 
 Here are two points of doctrine laid down. — 
 First: That by the decrees of God, no violence 
 is done to the will of the creation: its natural 
 liberty is not invaded or destroyed. It is not in 
 God's decree that it should be forced or divested 
 of its natural power, but the contrary. Asl un- 
 derstand my brother. Dr. Wilson, he contradicts 
 the position here taken, he takes away the natu- 
 ral power of the will, so that it must act without 
 constitution or any natural power adequate to 
 right volition and under a natural necessity. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson here interposed, and said he had 
 not used the word Decrees at all.] 
 
 Dr.Beechcr resumed — The remark is nothing 
 to the purpose. I am speaking on the decrees. 
 1 want my brother to understand the bearing of 
 this truth, for remember I stand pledged if possi- 
 ble, to convince him. Now I say that the doc- 
 trine of God's decrees, corroborates that which 
 I read respecting natural liberty. I have shown 
 that there is nothing in God's whole plan that 
 amounts to the destruction of the natural liberty 
 of the will. Now if I can show that on the con- 
 trary, his decrees confirm it, why then, I carry 
 my exposition. But what says the chapter: 
 
 'God from all eternity, did freely and unchangea- 
 bly ordain whatsoever comes to pass.' 
 
 Th.it God did ordain the Fall, and all its con- 
 nections and consequences, cannot be denied. — 
 But how were these ordained? This beloved 
 Confession tells us how: 
 
 It was, 'so that no violence is oflfered to the crea- 
 
44 
 
 tures, nor is tJic liberty or contingency of second 
 causes taken away, but rather established.' 
 
 Hers it is disclosed that the natural liberty of 
 the will is not destroyed, but rather established 
 instead oftaking away free agency and the ca- 
 pacity of choice, God decreed to establish it. — 
 Whatever has been the wteck and ruin produc- 
 ed by the fall, the free agency originally confer- 
 red upon man, has not been knocked away. — 
 Hence it was, that I pressed this book to my 
 heart, because it assures me, that the righteous 
 Governor of the world, has done no violence to 
 these powers and faculties of man, on which his 
 government rests. 
 
 But I am happy on this subject, in being able 
 to adduce, an authority altogether above my 
 own. What did the Assembly of Divines mean 
 hy this word contingenci/? The celebrated Dr. 
 Twiss, who was heir prolocutor or moderator, 
 must be high au hority on that question. If 1 
 can refer to him it is as if I could call up Wash- 
 ington, or Jefferson or Hamilton, or Adams, and 
 question them touching the meaning of a passage 
 in the declaration of independence. The high 
 standing of Dr. Twiss, and his prevailing influ- 
 ence is manifest, from llie fact of his being called 
 to preside over an assembly of such illustrious 
 men, and here is his interpretation: 
 
 ' Whereas we see some things come to pass nec.;s- 
 sarily, some conlhigently, so God hath ordained that 
 all things shall come to pass.: but necessary things 
 necessarily, and contingent things contingently, that 
 is avoidably and with a possibihty of not coming to 
 pass. For every universily scholar knows this to be 
 the notion of contingency.' — Clir. Spec. vol. vii. No. 
 1. p. 165, 
 
 Dr. Twiss is speaking of natural and moral 
 events, the only events which exist in the uni- 
 verse; and he says that God decreed that all 
 things should come to pass; that natural events 
 should come to pass necessarily; and that moral 
 events, which are acts of will, and which he calls 
 ' contingent things,' shall come to pass contin- 
 gently; which he explains to mean avoidably 
 and with a natural possibility of not coming to 
 pass. He is speaking of the moral world, and 
 he says that in the natural world all is necessary, 
 as opposed to choice; but-that in the moral world 
 all is free, as opposed to coercion, or natural 
 necessity, or natural inability of choice; and that 
 every act of will, though certain in respect to the 
 decree, is yet free and uncoerced in coming to 
 pass, and as to any natural necessity, always 
 avoidable — never avoided, but according to tlic 
 very nature of free agency, aiwii^'s avoidable, in 
 accordance with the language of the Confession, 
 ch. ix. sec. 1. [quoted above.] 
 
 Now we shall show how God executes his de- 
 crees; and what says the Confession on this 
 point. (See ch. v. sec. 2:) 
 
 Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and de- 
 cree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass 
 imnautably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, 
 he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature 
 
 of second causes, either necessarily, freely,^ or con- 
 tingently. 
 
 The account given of the actual effects of the 
 fall, is a still further confirmation of our exposi- 
 tion; ch. vi. sec. 2: 
 
 By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, 
 and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, 
 and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul 
 and body. 
 
 Also Shorter Catechism, Ques. and Ans. 17, 
 18: 
 
 Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring man- 
 kind' 
 
 A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin 
 and misery." 
 
 Q. 18. Wherein consists tlie sinfulness of that 
 estate whereinto man fell? 
 
 A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, 
 consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of 
 original righteousness, and the corruption ofhis whole 
 nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; to- 
 gether with all actual transgressions which proceed 
 from it. 
 
 If Dr. Wilson's position be right, this answer 
 should have been changed, and we ought to have 
 been told, that the fall brought mankind into a 
 state of natural impotency. But it says no such 
 thing. It says it brought him into a state of sin. 
 What! Can a man sin without being a fvce 
 agent? Howcanitbe? The effects here stated 
 are, the loss of holiness and the corruption of his 
 nature. But surely the corruption of nature is 
 not the annihilation of nature; his nature must 
 still exist in order to be corrupt. What then is 
 its corruption? It is death in sin, not the death 
 of its natural powers. There is no destruction 
 ofthe agents. But there is a perversion of those 
 powers, which do constitute their agency. So 
 much for the testimony of the Confession of 
 Faith. 
 
 I said, that in expounding a written instrun>ent 
 we are always to consider the attributes of the 
 subject, concerning which it speaks, that its 
 language is to be expounded, in reference to the 
 nature of the thing. The Confession teaches 
 that man's will was endowed with a natural 
 ability and freedom and has suffered no perver- 
 sion but that which consists in a wrong use. Its 
 natural liberty remains, but in regard to moral 
 liberty, i. c. an unbiassed will, the ba)ance is 
 struck wrong. Now in support of the exposi- 
 tion given, I allege, 1st. The nature of tilings 
 as God has made them as existing only in the 
 relations of cause and effect. The doctrine of 
 cause and effect pervades the universe of God. 
 The whole natural world is made up of it. It 
 is the basis of all science and of all intellectual 
 operations which respect mind. Can the intel- 
 lect be annihilated and thinking still go on? 
 No more can the faculty or power of choice be 
 annihilated and free agency stiir remain. Is 
 there not natural power in angels, and jvas there 
 not natural power in Adam before he fell? All 
 the powers ofthe mind, perception, association, 
 
45 
 
 abstraction, memory, taste and feeling, con- 
 science, and capacity of choice, which were 
 required and did exist when man was created 
 free, are still required to constitute free agency, 
 and can it be that when all which capacitated 
 Adam freely to choose is demolished, that the 
 Lord still requires of his posterity that they, 
 without the powers of their ancestor, should ex- 
 ercise the perfect obedience that was demanded 
 o( him. Do the requisitions of law continue 
 when all the necessary antecedents to obedience 
 are destroyed? Has God required effects with- 
 out a cause? If he has, then he has in the case 
 ■of man, violated the analogies of the whole uni- 
 verse. For in the natural world there is no 
 effect without a cause, nor is there in the intel- 
 lectual world. IIow then can it be, that the 
 same analogy does not hold in the moral world, 
 where there exists such tremendous responsibili- 
 ties? What! Will God send men to hell, for 
 not doing impossibilities — for not producing an 
 effect without a cause? 
 
 2. The supposition of continued obligation 
 and responsibility after all the powers of causa- 
 tion are gone, is contrary to the common sense 
 and intuitive perception of all mankind. On 
 the subject of moral obligation, all men c:in see 
 and do sec that there can be no effect without a 
 cause. Men arc so constituted, that they cannot 
 help seeing and feeling this. That nothing can- 
 not produce something is an intuitive perception, 
 and you can't prevent it. This is the basis of 
 that illustrious demonstration by which we prove 
 the being of a God. For if one thing may exist 
 without a cause, all things may, and we are jet 
 to get hold of the (irst strand of an argument to 
 prove the existence of a God. Ail men see that 
 to require what there is not preparation /or, is 
 to demand an effect without a cause. What is 
 the foundation of accountability? It is the pos- 
 session of something to be accounted for. But 
 if man does not possess the antecedent cause, he 
 sees and feels that he is not to blame, and you 
 cannot with more infallible certainty make men 
 believe, and fix them in the belief, that they are 
 not responsible, than to teach them that they 
 liave no power. It is the way to make a man a 
 fatalist. But you can't do it. God has put 
 that in his breast which can't be reasoned away. 
 Every man knows and feels that he has power 
 find is responsible. Men never associate blame 
 with the qualities of will or action, on the sup- 
 position of a natural impossibility that they 
 should be otherwise, and always on the supposi- 
 tion that they were able to have chosen or acted 
 otherwise. Let me confirm this position by an 
 appeal to r.ict. What would be the education 
 of a family on this principle. There is not a 
 chilli of live years old, but understands this. He 
 breaks a plate, or spoils a piece of furniture, and 
 when he apprehends punishment, he pleads, and 
 he pleads with confidence, that he did not mean 
 lo do it. Plis language is, I could'nt help it, and 
 on that plea he rests. The child understands it, 
 
 and the parent understands it, and all human 
 laws are built upon it. Why is not an idiot 
 punished when he commits a crime ? For the 
 lack of that natural ability which alone makes 
 him responsible. Why are not lunatics treated 
 as subjects of law? Because their reason has 
 been so injured as to destroy their free agency 
 and with it to put an end to their accountabihty. 
 And yet there are men who suppose, that the 
 free agency of all men was blotted out by the 
 fall! Look at the government of a family. If 
 one child is an idiot, the parent does not trust 
 that child as he does the rest. He feels and 
 admits, that the poor idiot is not responsible for 
 its acts and the same principle holds in the case 
 of monomania, where the mind is deranged in 
 one particular respect. I was myself acquainted 
 with a case of this sort. I knew an individual 
 in whom all the powers were perfect — save that 
 the power of association was wanting: that 
 faculty by which one thought draws on another; 
 and she was a perfect curiosity. She would 
 commence talking on one subject, and before the 
 sentence was complete, she would commence on 
 another which had not the remotest connection 
 with it, and in an instant pass to a third which 
 was foreign from botii; and thus she would hop, 
 skip, and jump over all the world, there was no 
 concatenation of thought. Now, suppose this 
 woman was required to deliver a Fourth of July 
 Oiation, admitting that she possessed all the 
 knowledge and talent in other respects, neces- 
 sary to such a task; and when she failed to do it, 
 is she to be taken lo the whipping post, and 
 lacerated for not doing that \\hich she wanted 
 the natural ability to do? The magistrate who 
 would award such a sentence would at once be- 
 come infamous, and shall not the Judge of all 
 the earth do right? Will the glorious and right- 
 eous Jehovah reap where he has not sown, and 
 gather where he has not strewed? Will he re- 
 quire obedience, where all power to obey is 
 gone? Men do not require that, when even one 
 faculty is gone; and will God, when all are gone, 
 come and take his creature by the throat and 
 say to him, pay me that thou owcst? That was 
 what the slothful servant thought and said. I 
 knew thee that thou wast a hard master, reaping 
 where thou hast not sown, and gathering where 
 thou hast not strown, and I was afraid. I don't 
 wonder he was afraid. Who would not be afraid 
 under such a ruler? Who could tell what would 
 come next? God requires according to that 
 which a man hath and not according to that 
 which he hath not. Were it otherwise, who 
 could tell what wantonness and what oppression 
 might not proceed from Heaven's high throne? 
 Yet some would have us to believe, that he will 
 send men to hell to all eternity, for not doing that 
 which they had no natural ability to do. 
 
 3. Tiie original powers of free agency and ac- 
 countability bestowed on man, in innocency, de- 
 cide that power to choose with a powerof choice 
 to the contrary, is an essential constituent of ac 
 
46 
 
 countabillty, in all his posterity. There can be 
 no doubt that God is able to make a free agent, 
 to bring a mind into being which is capable of 
 doing right or wrong under a perfect law. — 
 There are two orders of intellectual beings with 
 which we are acquainted, Angels and Men. — 
 With respect to Adam in innocencj, we know 
 certainly, that God laid the foundation of his ac- 
 countability in a free agency, which included 
 both the ability of standing and the ability of 
 falling. Before either Adam or the Angels act- 
 ed at all, they had a capacity to respond to the 
 divine requirements; and it was indispensable 
 to their moral action that they should. But if 
 this was necessary to begin moral accountabili- 
 ty, why is it not equally necessary to continue 
 it. Did God give to man more than he need- 
 ed? Surely not. God has told us what he did. 
 There is no metaphysics about it- He confer- 
 red upon him no one item of power, which 
 he afterwards took away. The Confession saya 
 so, and the perceptions of mankindj and the an- 
 alogy of God's government, both in the natural 
 world and moral world, and the intuitive know- 
 ledge which we all possess of the connection of 
 cause and efiect and of the foundation of moral 
 obligation, all go to establish and confirm the 
 truth. 
 
 My argument is, that free agency and obliga- 
 tion were commenced, in the possession of natur- 
 al ability cojnmensurate with all that God re- 
 quired, and that what was necessary to begin 
 them, is equally necessary to continue (hem and 
 always will be equally necessary. I know that it is 
 said, that the devil has fallen into a state of nat- 
 ural inability. But to this I can't agree. I 
 have no" doubt the devil would be glad to think 
 so. Itwould relieve his deep and insupportable 
 anguish if he could believe, that he had never 
 sinned but once, and that ever since that he has 
 been a poor, helpless creature. No! he has 
 sinned since his fall and will sin again. He 
 does possess free agency and he can't run away 
 from it. It is a necessary attribute of his 
 being, and so it is of ours. God will live, and 
 his law will live, and the curses of his law will 
 live, and that is the reason why the punishment 
 of the next world is eternal. Stripes continue 
 to follow upon the footsteps of transgression to 
 all eternity. 
 
 I say that there was nothing in the fall to 
 destroy man's free agenc)'. The fall in Adam 
 was occasioned by a single actual sin; but does 
 actual sin destroy free agency. If so, drunk- 
 ards and all liars will be glad to know it. The 
 more liquor they drink, and the more lies thoy 
 tell, the less will be their accountability. No, 
 the fall did not destroy free agency or ac- 
 countability. It did create a powerful bias, so 
 that there was an inevitable certainty that man 
 would go wrong. But it did not destroy hia 
 capacity of going right. Look at the conse- 
 quence that would follow. If sin destroys free 
 agency, then the man who tells the truth is under 
 
 obligaliottto speak truth; but he who tells lies is 
 not under obligation. Sinning does not destroy the 
 power of obedience any more iiimen, than it did 
 in Adam. It destroyed it in neither, and there- 
 fore, although man fell, the law marched on 
 unimpaired, unchanged, and' therefore it was 
 that Christ came to save not machines, but per- 
 verted free agents. 
 
 4thly. All such constitutional powers as were 
 requisite or can be conceived necessary for man's 
 accountability do still remain. The natural . 
 power of man is a matter of inspection and 
 consciousness. We see it in others, we feel it 
 in ourselves. We have still, perception, reason, 
 conscience, association, abstraction, memory. — 
 All these were possessed by man, when he was 
 constituted a free agent, and they all do now in 
 fact exist, so far us our natural and constitution- 
 al powers are concerned, there is no diiference 
 betwixt us and Adam. The difference lies in 
 this, that Adam while in a state of innocency 
 put forth these powers in a right direction, while 
 we all exert them perversely, although by the 
 spontaneous energy of the mind. Therefore, 
 the fact that man is a free agent, is as much a 
 matter of notoriety and as generally known and 
 understood, as the qualities of the inferior ani- 
 mals; as that a lion is a lion, oralamb is a lamb. It 
 isjust as plain that we have the faculties necessa- 
 ry to free action as that we have five senses. — 
 These were all that were ever put into Adam. 
 We have just as many as he had, neither more 
 nor less, and if you take away any one of them 
 you do to that extent take away the responsi- 
 bility of the individual; at least such is the doc- 
 trine in all human courts of justice, though 
 some would persuade us it is otherwise in the 
 righteous court of Heaven. 
 
 5thly. It is a matter of common consciousness 
 among all mankind that men are free to choose 
 with the power of a contrary choice, or, in other 
 words, to choose life or death. When a man 
 does wrong, and then reflects upon the act, he 
 feels that he was free and is responsible; and so 
 when he looks forward to a future action. — 
 When, for example, he deliberates whether he 
 shall commit a theft, he listens to the pleading 
 of cowardice or conscience on the one side, and 
 of covetousness and laziness on the other. All 
 these things come up and are looked at, and af- 
 ter considering them, heat length screws up his 
 mind to the point and does the deed; and when 
 he has done it, does he not know, does he not 
 feel, that he could have chosen the other way. 
 If not, why did he balance when he was consid- 
 ering? Did he not know that he had power to 
 do the act, and power to leave it undone? And 
 when it is past recal, is he not conscious that he 
 need not have done it? And does not be say 
 in his remorse, I am sorry I did it. I say there- 
 fore it is a matter of common consciousness of 
 mankind. Give a child an apple or an orange, 
 after he has eaten the orange he will wish he 
 had it back again, and he will say I wish 
 
47 
 
 I had eaten the apple and kept the or- 
 ange. But why, if he did not feiel that 
 at the time he had the power to keep the 
 orange and eat the apple? Yes, men have the 
 power; and the consciousness that they have it 
 will go with them through eternity. What says 
 God, when he warns the sinner of the conse- 
 quence of his evil choice? Lest thou mourn at the 
 last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, 
 and say, how have I hated instruction and my 
 heart despised reproof, and have not obeyed the 
 voice of my teacher, nor inclined mine ear to 
 them that instructed me. Incurable regret will 
 arise from the perfect consciousness that when 
 wc did evil we did it freely of choice, under no 
 coercion ; that the act was our own, and that we 
 are justly reponsible for it. This is the worm 
 that never dies, this, this is the fire that never 
 shall be quenched. And because this conscious- 
 ness is in men, you never can reason them out 
 of a sense of their accountability. Many have 
 tried it, but none have etFeclunlly or for any 
 length of time succeeded; and the reason is plain, 
 there is nothing which the mind is more con- 
 scious of than the fact of its own voluntary ac- 
 tion with tlic power of acting right or wrong. — 
 The mind sees and knows, and regrets when it 
 has done wrong. Take away this consciousness 
 and there is no remorse. You can't produce re- 
 morse, as long as a man feels that his act was not 
 his own — ^that it was not voluntary but the effect 
 of compulsion. He may dread consequences, 
 but you never can make him feel remorse for 
 the act on its own account. This is the reason 
 why men who have reasoned away the existence 
 of God and argued to prove tiiat the soul is 
 nothing but matter, know, as soon as they reflect, 
 that all their reasoning is false. There is a 
 lamp within, which they can't extinguish, and 
 after all their metaphysics, they arc conscious 
 that they act freelj^, and that there is a God to 
 whom tiiey are responsible; and hence it is that 
 when they cross the ocean, and a storm comes 
 on, and they expect to go to the bottom, they 
 begin, straightway, to pray to God and confess 
 their sins. 
 
 6thly. I have only to say that there are traces 
 of this principle of the moral government of God, 
 in the administration of all human governments. 
 They all proceed upon the supposition of a nat- 
 ural ability to do right. They take it for grant- 
 ed, and as they depart from this assumption, and 
 substitute physical coercion for moral influence, 
 they debase man, and break him down into an 
 nnlmal. Treat men as if they were dogs, and 
 soon they will act like dogs. But the moment 
 you treat them as free moral agents and respon- 
 sible for their actions, tl\at moment you begin to 
 elevate them: just as you do a child when you 
 trust him and address his reason; he feels that he 
 ifi raised, and he acts accordingly; and just as 
 you depart from this you become unable to man- 
 age your child. He gets out of your hands, he 
 gets above you; for as respects his relation to 
 
 you, he is indomitable. The will of man is 
 stronger than anything in the universe, except 
 the Almighty God; and if you disregard this truth 
 you ruin your child. 
 
 I have now finished the argument in confirma- 
 tion of the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, so 
 far as the confirmation is derived from the nature 
 of things. 
 
 The interpretation given by Dr. Wilson goes 
 upstream. It is against the whole constitution 
 of the universe. It is contrary to the common 
 sense and intuitive perceptions of man. There 
 is a deep and a universal consciousness in all 
 men as to the freedom of choice, and in denying 
 this you reverse God's constitution of man. You 
 assume that God gave a deceptive constitution to 
 mind, or a deceptive consciousness. Nowlthink 
 that God is as honest in his moral world as he is 
 in the natural world. I believe that in our con- 
 sciousness he tells the truth, and that the natural 
 constitution, universal feelings and perceptions 
 of men are the voice of God speaking the truth; 
 and if the truth is not here, where may we expect 
 tofindit? 
 
 My next argument is to show that in view of 
 such reasoning the whole church of God basset 
 her seal to this doctrine, and that what has been 
 termed a slander upon herfairfame,so far from 
 being a slander, will turn out to be a glorious 
 truth, and that the demonstration of it will have 
 wiped off from her fame a foul stigma, which was 
 cast upon it by a misinterpretation of her stand- 
 ards. 
 
 I aflirmthen, in support of my exposition of the 
 Confession, that the received doctrine of the 
 church from the primitive age down to this day 
 is, that man is a (ree agent, in possession of such 
 natural powers as are adequate to a compliance 
 with every requirement of God. Now as to the 
 evidence of this, it is derived from two sources 
 — first, the creeds of different branches of the 
 churCh, and secondly, the works of her standard 
 writers — and by standard writers I mean such as 
 by their talent, learning, number, and the ven- 
 eration attached to their names may be taken 
 as fair representatives of the current opinion of 
 the ciiurch from age to age. And I affirm, that 
 the greatest and the best men in the church 
 have taught the very same doctrine that I teach, 
 and which I say the Confession ofFaith teaches. 
 If this is so, it settles the question. 
 
 But Dr. Wilson has said, what are the opin- 
 ions of these writers to us? What have we to 
 do with them? I answer that the opinions of 
 great and good men in the church, showing how 
 the church from generation to generation has un- 
 derstood the Bible, is a light in which both he 
 and I have reason to rejoice. And if I shall 
 bring the united testimony of the talent, learning 
 and piety of the church, in support of my expo- 
 sition, I am willing to run the risk of going ta 
 Synod. I shall therefore submit to the Presby- 
 tery a series of quotations from the fathers as I 
 find them, collected by Dr. Scott, in his remarks 
 
4§ 
 
 upon Tomline. I take his quotations as correct, 
 not having the originals in my possession, by 
 which to verify them. I presume Dr. Wilson 
 will admit their authenticity. 
 
 And I commence with the writings of Justin 
 Martyr, who lived nearer to the apostles than 
 those who lived fifty years ago, were to our pil- 
 grim fathers of New England, so that if these 
 persons should testify to us, what the pilgrims 
 held, at the time of their landing at Plymouth, 
 it would be testimony bearing just such relation 
 to them, as the writings of Justin Martyr do to the 
 opinions of the apostolic age. 
 
 The following extracts are from Scott's Re- 
 marks on the Refutation of Calvinism, by Tom- 
 line, vol. 2. 
 
 Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. 
 
 But lest any one should imagine, that I am assert- 
 ing that things happen by a necessity of fate, because 
 I have said that tilings are foreknown, I proceed to 
 refute that opinion also. That punishments and 
 chastisements and good rewards are given according 
 to the worth of the action of every one, having learnt 
 it from the prophets, we declare to be true : since if 
 it were not so, but all things happen according to 
 fate, nothing would be in our power; for if it were 
 decreed by fate, that one should be good, and another 
 bad, no praise would be due to the former, or blame 
 to the latter. And again, if mankind had not the 
 power, by free will, to avoid what is disgraceful and 
 to choose what is good, they would not be responsible 
 for their actions, p. 13. 
 
 Because God from iJ/je beginning endowed angels 
 and men with free will, they justly receive punish- 
 ment of their sins in everlasting fire. For it is the 
 nature of every one who is born, to be capable of 
 virtue and vice, for nothing would deserve praise, if 
 it has not the power of turning itself away. p. 25. 
 
 Tatian, A. D. 172. 
 
 Free will destroyed us. Being free, we became 
 slaves, we were sold, because of sin. No evil pro- 
 ceeds from God. We have produced wickedness; 
 but 5hoBe who have produced it have it in their power 
 agOiin to remove it. p. 31. 
 
 Irenaeus, A. D. 178. 
 
 But man being endowed with reason, and in 
 this respect like to God, being made free in his will, 
 and having power over liimself, is the cause that 
 sometimes he become wheat and sometimes chaff. 
 Wherefore ho will also be justly condemned, because 
 being made rational, he lost true reason, and living 
 irrationally, he opposed the justice of God delivering 
 himself up to everv earthly spirit and serving all lusts, 
 p. 35. 
 
 But if some men were bad by nature, and 
 others good, neither the good would deserve praise, 
 for they were created so, nor would the bad deserve 
 blame, being born so. But since all men are of the 
 same nature, and able to lay hold of and do that which 
 is good, and able to reject it again, and not do it, 
 some justly receive praise, even from men, who act 
 according to good laws, and some much more from 
 God; and obtain deserved testimony of generally 
 choosing and persevering in that which is good : but 
 otliers are blamed, and receive the deserved reproach 
 of rejecting that which is just and good. And there- 
 
 fore (he prophets enjohied men to do Justice andpeP 
 form good works, p. 48. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, A. Z>. 194 
 
 If eternal salvation were to be bought, how much, 
 oh man, would you profess to give for it? If any one 
 were to measure out all Pactolus, the fabled river of 
 gold, he would not pay an equivalent price. Do not 
 then despair. It is in your own power, if you will, 
 to purchase this precious salvation, with your own 
 treasure, charity and faith, which is the just price of 
 life. This price God willingly accepts. 
 
 [We have a natural power to choose or refuse, but 
 we have no moral power to choose what is holy and 
 good, without the special grace of God. 'We have 
 not the disposition and consequently not the ability.' 
 Scott commenting on Clement.] 
 
 Neither praise nor dispraise, nor honors nor punish- 
 ments, would be just, if the soul had not the power 
 of desiring and rejecting, if vice were involuntary, 
 p. 54. 
 
 As therefore be is to be commended, who uses his 
 power in leading a virtuoiis life; so much more is he 
 to be venerated and adored, who has given us this 
 free and sovereign power and has permitted us to live, 
 not having allowed what we choose or what we avoid 
 to be subject to a slavish necessity p. 54. 
 
 Since some men are without faith and others con- 
 tentious, all do not obtain the perfection of good. — 
 Nor is it possible to obtain it without our own exertion. 
 The whole, however, does not depend on our will, for 
 instance, our future destiny; for we are siived by 
 grace, not indeed without good works. But those 
 who are naturally disposed to good must Etpply soma 
 attention to it. p. 56. 
 
 Tertullian, A. D. 200. 
 
 I find that man was formed by God with free will 
 and with power over himself, observing in him no 
 image or likeness to God more than in this respect: — 
 for he was not formed after God, who is uniform in 
 face, bodily lines, &c. which are so various in mankind 
 but in that substance which he derived from God 
 himself, that is, the soul, answering to the form 
 of God; and he was stamped with the freedom of 
 his will. 
 
 The law itself, which was then imposed by God, 
 confirmed this condition of man. For a law would 
 not have have been inposed on a person who had not 
 in his pou;er the obedience- due to the law; nor again 
 would transgression have been threatened with death, 
 if the contempt also of the law were not placed to the 
 account of man's free will. 
 
 He who should be found' to be good or bad by ne- 
 cessity, and not voluntarily, could not with jus- 
 tice receive- the retribution either of good or evil, 
 p. 64. 
 
 Origen, A. D. 220. 
 
 It [the will] has to contend with the devil and all 
 his angels, and the powers which oppose it, because 
 they strive to burden it with sins: but we, if we live 
 rightly and prudently, endeavor to rescue ourselves 
 from this kind of burden. Whence, consequent]/, we 
 may understand, that we are not subject to necessilj, 
 so as to be compelled by all means to do either bad 
 or good things, although it be against our will. For if 
 we be masters of one will, some powers, perhaps, may 
 urge us to sin, and others assist us to safety,- yet we 
 are not compelled by necessity to act either rightly or 
 wrongly. 
 
49 
 
 According (o us, there 13 nothtng fn any ralional 
 creature, which is not capable of good as well as evil. 
 There is no nature that does not admit of good and 
 eeil, except that of God, which is the foundation of all 
 good. p. 60. 
 
 We have frequently slmwn in all our disputations, 
 that the nature of rational souls is such as to be capa- 
 ble of good and evil. Every one has ihe power of 
 choosing good and choosing evil. p. 07. 
 
 It is our business to live virtuously, and that God re- 
 quires of us not as his own gift, or supplied by any oth- 
 er person, or as some think decreed by fate, but as 
 our own work. p. 08. 
 
 A thing does nothappen because it was forekr.own, 
 but it was foreknown because it would happen. This 
 distinction is necessary. For if any one so interprets 
 what was to happen as to make wliat was foreknown 
 necessary, we do not agree with him, for we do not 
 say that it was necessary for Judas to be a traitor, al- 
 though it was foreknown that Judas would be a traitor. 
 For in the prophecies concerning Judas, tliero are 
 complaints and accusations against him, publicly pro- 
 claiming the circumstance of his blame; but he would 
 be free from blame, if he had been a traitor from ne- 
 cessity, and if it had been impossible for him to be 
 .like the other apostles, pp. 80, 81. 
 
 The virtue of a rational creature is mixed, arising 
 from his own free will, and the divine power conspir- 
 ing with him who chooses that which is good. But 
 there is need of our own free will, and of divine coop- 
 eration, which does not depend upon our will, not on- 
 ly to become good and virtuous, but after we become 
 so, that we may persevere in virtue, since even a per- 
 son who is made perfect, will fall away, if he bo elat- 
 ed by his virtue and ascribe the whole to himself, not 
 referring Ihe due glory to Ilim, who contributes by 
 far the greater share, both in the acquisition of virtue 
 and the perseverance of it. p. 82. 
 
 Cyprian, A. D. 248. 
 
 Yet did he not reprove those who left him or threat- 
 en them severely, but rather turning to the apostles 
 said, 'Will ye also go away;' preserving tlie law, by 
 which man, being left to his own liberty and endowed 
 with free will, seeks for himself death or salvation, p. 
 84. 
 
 Lactantius, A. D. 300. 
 
 That man has a free will to believe or not to be- 
 lieve, see in Deuteronomy, 'I have set before you life 
 and death, blessing and cursing, therefwre choose life 
 Ihat both thou and thy seed may live.' p. 88. 
 
 Euscbius, A. D. 315. 
 The fault is in liim who chooses, and not in God. — 
 For God has not made nature or the substance of 
 the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing 
 but what is good. Every thing is good which is ac- 
 cording to nature. Every rational soul hag naturally 
 a good t>ce will formed for the choice of what is good. 
 But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be 
 blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according 
 to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of 
 choice and not of nature. For when a person who 
 had the power of choosing what is gooJ, did not 
 choose it, but involuntarily turned away from what is 
 best, pursuing what was worst; what room for escape 
 could be left him, who is become the cause of his own 
 internal disease, having neglected the innate law, as 
 it were, his Savior ami Physician, p. 91. 
 
 In all these quotations, the words of these 
 
 7 
 
 fathers must be expousiued with regard to the ob- 
 ject at which their writings were directed. Let 
 it not be forgotten, that the Grst heresy which 
 vexed the church after the days of the apostles, 
 was the pag in notion of fale. or such a necessa- 
 ry concatenation ofcauseand eflTccf.as was above 
 the will both of gods and men; the very gods 
 themselves had no power to resist it. The same 
 notion was involved in the heresj'oflhe gnostics, 
 who held that all sin lay in matter, and that man 
 was a sinner from necessity; and of the man- 
 icheans, who held that all sin was in the created 
 substance of the mind. Now in resisting these 
 heretics, these fathers maintained with zeal the 
 doctrine of free will, meaning thereby not an 
 unbiased will, but a will free from the necessity 
 of fate, for. the philosophers and the gnostics, 
 and the manicheans all held the doctrine of 
 man's natural inability. The philosophers de- 
 rived it from fate; the gnostics, from the corrup- 
 tion of matter; the manicheans from the consti- 
 tution and nature of the soul. This was the 
 first great attack upon the truth, on which these 
 venerable men were called to fix their sanctified 
 vision, and it was against these several versions 
 of error, that they bore their testimony in favor 
 of free will. 
 
 Cyril rf Jerusalem, .4. /). 318. 
 
 Learn also this, that the soul before it came into 
 the world committed no sin, but having come sinless 
 we now sin through free will. 
 
 The soul has free will: the devil indeed may sug- 
 gest, but he has not also the ))owcr to compel contra- 
 ry to the will. He suggests the thought of fornication 
 — if you be witling you accept it, if unwilling you re- 
 ject it: for if you committed fornication by necessity, 
 why did God prepare a hell? If you acted justly by 
 nature and not according to your own free choice, 
 why did God prepare unutterable rewards? p. 103. 
 Hilary, A. D. 30 i. 
 
 The excuse of a certain natural necessity in crimes 
 is not to be admitted. For the serpent miglit liavo 
 been innocent, wlio himself stops his ears that they 
 may bo deaf. p. 110. 
 
 There is not any necessity of sin in the nature of 
 men, but the pracliceof .'■in arises from the desires of 
 the will and the pleasures of vice. 
 
 Perseverencc in faith is indeed the gift of God, but 
 the beginning is from ourselves, and our will ought to 
 have this property from itself, namely, that it exerts it- 
 self 
 
 Epiphanius and Basil, 300, 370. 
 
 How does he seem fo retain the freedom of his will 
 in this world? For to believe or not to believe, is in 
 our own power. But where it is in our power to be- 
 lieve or not to believe, it is in our power to act rightly 
 or to sin, to do good, or to do evil. — Epiphanius. 
 
 They attribute to the heavenly bodies the causes of 
 those things that depend on every one's choice, I 
 mean habits of virtue and of vice. — Basil p. 115. 
 
 If the origin of virtuous or vicious actions be not in 
 ourselves, but there is an innate necessity, there is no 
 need of legislators to prescribe what we are to do and 
 what we are to avoid; there is no need of judges to 
 honor virtue or punish wickedness. For it is not the 
 injustice of the thief or murderer who could not restrain 
 
50 
 
 his hand even if he would, because of the insupera- 
 ble necessity which urges him to the actions. — Basil. 
 p. 116. 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzen A. D. 370. 
 
 The good derived from nature, has no claim to 
 acceptance; but that which proceeds itomfree will is 
 <Ieserving of praise. What merit has fire in burning? 
 for the burning comes by nature. What merit has 
 water in descending? For this it has from the Crea- 
 tor. What merit has snow in being cold? or the sun 
 in shining. For it shines whether it will or not. Give 
 nie a virtuous will. Give me the becoming spiritual, 
 from being carnal; the bping raised by reason from 
 being depressed by the weight of the flesh; the, being 
 founJ heavenly from having been low-minded; the 
 appearing superior to the flesh, after having been 
 bound to the flesh, p. 124. 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa. 
 
 Lei any consider how. great the facility to what is 
 bad, gliding into sin spontaneously without any effort. 
 For fliat anyone should become wicked, depends 
 solely upon choice; and the will is often sufficient for 
 the completion. of wickednefs. p. 127. 
 
 Ambrose, A. D. 374. 
 
 We are not constrained to obedience by a servile 
 necessity, but by free will, whether we lean to virtue 
 or vice. 
 
 No one is under oblfgation to commit a fault unless 
 he inclines to it from his own will. p. 131. 
 Jerome, A. D. 392. 
 
 No seed is of itself bad, for God made all things 
 good; but bad seed has arisen from those, who by 
 their own will are bad, which happens from will and 
 'KOt from nature, p. 141. 
 
 That we profess free-will and can turn it either to 
 ■a good or bad purpose, according to our determination, 
 is owing to His grace, who made us after His image 
 ■and likeness. 
 
 We have now come to Augustine. And now 
 it will be necessary to avail mjself of the remarks 
 I made on the laws of exposition. I said that 
 it was necessary, in order to a right exposition 
 of any ancient instrument in the church, to take - 
 into view the controversies which prevailed at 
 the time of its composition. We must now 
 apply this especially to Augustine. Down to his 
 time, the free will and natural ability of man 
 were held by the whole church, against the 
 heretical notions of a blind fate, of material 
 -depraTif}', and of depravity created in the sub- 
 stratum of the soul. The great etrort, hitherto, 
 had been to throw moral qualities into the will. 
 But now I'elagius arose, and denied the doctrine 
 of the fa]l;-and from this spot it became necessary 
 not so much to prove natural ability which 
 Pelagius admitted, as to prove mora] inability, 
 which was as much opposed to the Pelagian 
 heresy as it was to that of the pagan philosophers, 
 of the gnostics, and of the manicheans. The 
 church had now to enter upon a new controversy, 
 and to fix her eye upon the question, what were 
 the consequences of the fall? The question of 
 free agency wasno longer- to be argued, for that 
 was not now controverted. Both Augustine 
 and Pelagius admitted it. The question which 
 
 now exists between Dr. Wilson and myself was 
 not at issue between them. The question in- 
 deed had the same name, viz: touching free will; 
 but it did not mean the same thing. The ques- 
 tion between them was, is the will unbiassed? 
 Is it in equilibrio? It was not, whether it was 
 free from the necessity of fate, or the influence 
 of matter, or of created depravity; but the ques- 
 tion was, has the fall given it a bias? has it struck 
 it out of equilibrio? and struck the balance 
 wrong? Pelagius said, no. Augustine said, 
 yes; and while in opposition to Pelagius, be 
 denied free will, he was as strong in favor of 
 iree will in the other sense, as any of the fathers 
 before him; as strong as I am: so that if I am a 
 Pelagian, Augustine was a Pelagian; although 
 his whole strength was exerted against Pelagius. 
 It" what I teach is Pelagianism, tfcen Augustine, 
 and Calvin, and Luther, and all the best writers 
 of the church in this age have been Pelagians, 
 except a k-vf who deny natural ability. 
 
 Augustine, A. D. 398. 
 
 Free 5vill is given to the soul, which they who 
 endeavor to weaken by trifling reasoning, are blind to 
 such a degree, that they do not even understand that 
 they say those vain and sacrilegious things, with their 
 own will. p. 176. 
 
 Every one is the author of his own sin. Whence, 
 if you doubt, attend to what is said above, that sins 
 are avenged by the justice of God; for they would 
 not be justly avenged unless committed with the will, 
 ibid. 
 
 It follows that nothing makes the mind companion 
 of lusl, except its own free will. ibid. 
 
 But now sin is so far a voluntary evil, that it is by 
 no means sin, unless it be voluntary: and this indeed 
 is so clear, that not any of the learned and no con- 
 siderable number of the unlearned dissent from it. 
 p. 179. 
 
 Which free will if God had not given, there could 
 be no just sentence of punishment, nor reward for 
 right conduct, nor a divine precept to repent of sins, 
 nor pardon of sins, which God has given us through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ; because he who does not sin 
 with his will, does not sin at all. Which sins, as I 
 have said, unless we had free will would not be sins. 
 Wherefore, if it be evident that there is no" sin where 
 there is not free will, I desire to know, what harm the 
 soul has done that it should be punished by God or 
 repent of sin, or deserve pardon since it has been 
 guilty of no sin. p. 214. 
 
 That tliere is free will, and that from thence every 
 one sins if he wills, and that he does not sin, if he 
 does not will, I prove not only in the divine-scriptures, 
 which you do not understand, but in the words of your 
 own Manes himself: hear then concerning free will, 
 first, the Lord himself when he speaks of two trees, 
 which you yourself have mentioned: hear him saying, 
 ' Either make the tree good and bis fruit good, or else 
 ■make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt.' When 
 therefore he says, 'do this or do that,' he shows power, 
 not nature. For no one, except God, can make a 
 tree, but every one has it in his will, cither to choose 
 those things that are good and be a good tree; or to 
 choose those things that are bad, and be a bad tree, 
 p. 215. 
 
 If he (Pelagius) will agree that the will itself iind 
 
51 
 
 the action are assisted by God, and so assisted that we 
 cannot will or do anything well without that assist- 
 ance, no controversy will be left between us, as far as 
 I can judge concerning the assistance of the grace of 
 God. p. 221. 
 
 Now the court will please to observe that one 
 of the charges against me as a heretic, viz. tiiat 
 of natural ability, is most abundantly declared 
 by Augustine, and often almost in the very same 
 words that I have employed. The court has 
 heard the words of my sermon; and they will 
 know that the proposition I laid down is this 
 proposition of Augustine, who was the Calvin of 
 Calvinism, and the author in fact of all the creeds 
 which have existed in the church since his day. 
 What a horrible heretic he was! and what 
 ignoramuses christians must have been at that 
 time of day. 
 
 The next authority I shall adduce is that of 
 Luther, who holds that, in the exercise of its own 
 faculties, the mind chooses, by its very constitu- 
 tion, just as much as it thinks by the exertion of 
 intellect. 
 
 Dr. Wilson inquired who was responsible for 
 these extracts? 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied that they were taken 
 from Milner's Church History, vol. v., and 
 were quotations from Luther's work dc Servo 
 arbitrio. 
 
 Luther tauglil tlio natural liberty of man as a free 
 agent, and the bondage of his will as a totally depraved 
 sinner. 'There is,' he says, 'no restraint either on 
 the divine or human will. In both cuscs llie will does 
 what it does, wliotliergood or bad, simp'y, and as at 
 perfect liberty, in the exercise of its own faculty — so 
 long as the operative grace of God is absent from us, 
 every thing we do, has in it a mi-Kturo of evil; and 
 therefore, of necessity, our worlis avail not to salvation. 
 Hero I do not mean a necessity of compulsion, but a 
 necessity as lo the certainty of the event. A man 
 who has not the Spirit of God, does evil willingly and 
 spontaneously. He is not violently impelled, a^'uinst 
 his will, as a thief is to the gallows. Bui the man 
 cannot alter his disposition to evil: nay, even though 
 he may be externally restrained from doing evil, he Is 
 averse to the restraint, and his inclination remains 
 still the same. Again, when the Holy Spirit is pleased 
 to change the will of a bad man, the new man still 
 acts voluntarily: ho is not compelled by the vSpirit to 
 determine contrary lo his will, but his will itself is 
 changed; and he cannot now do otherwise than love 
 the good, as before ho loved the evil.' Vol. v. cent. 
 16. chap. 12, sec. 2. 
 
 Thus we see it was LutheCs sentiment, that 
 depravity does not destroy the innate liberty of 
 the will, or its natural power;' althougli it cor- 
 rupts and perverts its exercise. 
 
 I now proceed to quote from Calvin, who 
 holds that necessity is voluntary, that is, that the 
 will is under no such necessity as destroys its 
 own power of choice; that there was no other 
 yoke upon man but voluntary servitude; so that 
 it will turn out that Calvin was as bad as I am, 
 as heterodox as I am; and that the doctrine for 
 which I am to be turned out of the church is not 
 new divinity, but old Calvinism. 
 
 Calvin declares, that God is voluntary in his good- 
 ness, Satan in his wickedness, and man in his sin. — 
 'VVe must therefore observe,' be says, 'that man, 
 having been corrupted by the fjll, sins voluntarily, 
 not with reluctance or constraint: with the strongest 
 propensity of disposition, not with violent coercion; 
 with the bias of his own passions, and not with exter- 
 nal compulsion.' He quotes Bernard, as agreeing 
 with Augustine, in sayi ig, 'Among all the animals, 
 man alone is free; and yet by the intervention of sin, 
 he suffers a species of violence, but from the will, 
 not from nature; so tint he is not thereby deprived of 
 his innate liberty.' Both Augustine and the Reform- 
 ers speak, indeed, of the bondage of the will, and of 
 the necessity of sinninj:. and of the impossibility tliat 
 a natural man should turn and save himself without 
 grace; but tlicy explain themselves, to mean that cer- 
 tainty of continuance in sin, which arises from a per- 
 verted free agency, and not from any natural impossi- 
 bility. For 'this necessity,' they say expressly, 'is 
 voluntary.' 'We are oppressed with a yoke, but no 
 other than that of voluntary servitude: therefore our 
 servitude renders us miserable, and our will renders 
 us inexcusable.' See Calvin's Inslit. Book ii. ch. 3. 
 sec. 5. 
 
 My next quotation will be from the Synod of 
 Dort. The Synod of Dort was the first attempt, 
 so far as I know, after the Reformation, to get 
 up a general council. While the church was 
 papal, it had been in the habit of often holding 
 general councils; but since the Reformation, no 
 such council had been held. But now entered 
 Arminius, teaching his notion of free will, which 
 Wii3 nothing but a second edition of Pelagian- 
 ism, though a little more diluted. His heresy 
 brought tiigclher the first general council that 
 had been held since the days of the Reforma- 
 tion. Jt consisted of illuslrious men from Eng- 
 land, Holland, and other countries, where the 
 Reforinalion had slicd iU blessed light. It sat 
 long; and its decisions were the fiist public ad- 
 judication of Calvinism which liicl been called 
 up by any heresy touching the will. The doc- 
 trine of Augustinr, of Luther, and of Calvin, 
 had swept all before them; till the impertinent 
 Arminius arose to perplex the church. It was 
 his errors that produced the Synod of Dort. 
 
 But in like n.aniior, as by the fall, man does not 
 cease to bo man, endowed with intellect and will, 
 [free agency,] neither hath tin, which pervaded the 
 whole human race, taken away the nature of the hu- 
 man species, but it hath depraved and spiritually 
 stained it. [Spiritually stained: that is, changed not 
 the constitution, but the character.] So even this di- 
 vine grace of regeneration does not act upon man 
 like stocks and trees; nor take away the properties 
 of his will, or violently compel it while unwilling; 
 [does not take away the constitutional powers of man 
 as a free agent, nor violently compel them;] but it 
 spiritually quickens or vivifies, heals, corrects, and 
 sweetly and at the same time powerfully inclines it, 
 so that whereas before it was wholly governed by the 
 rebellion and resistance of the flesh, now prompt and 
 sincere obedience of iho spirit may begin lo reign, 
 in which the renewal of our spiritual will and our 
 liberty truly consistsi. In whicii manner, (or for 
 which reason) unless the admirablo Author of all 
 
52 
 
 good diould work in us, there could be no hopo to 
 man of rising from the fall by that free will [free, 
 agency] by which, when standing lie fell into ruin. 
 
 The question is, whether free agency is taken 
 away, or only . the mind is depraved; and the 
 language of this Synod shows that they held 
 the latter. The inability was 'spiritual;' but 
 we don't apply 'spiritual' to bones and sinews, 
 nor to the substance of the soul. These men 
 say that the Spirit does not act upon the mind 
 of a sinner, as He does upon stones and trees; 
 but if man lies in a state of natural impotency, 
 then He does and must. Every word the Synod 
 employs, excludes the notion of natural inabili- 
 ty, and includes that of moral inability. This 
 is the inability which is removed by the Spirit 
 when He inclines the sinner to choose rightly. 
 He does not move him like a block or a stone. 
 He does not move him as a whirlwind carries a 
 tree along. 
 
 Another error charged against me is, that I 
 teach that regeneration is produced by the in- 
 strumentality of truth. On this subject, I shall 
 refer the court to Turretin, the great apostle of 
 orthodoxy, the text book which is used by the 
 Princeton Seminary, under the patronage and 
 control of the Presbyterian church, and out of 
 which Dr. Alexander teaches the students of 
 divinity and forms the rising ministry of the 
 church. The passage which Professor Stowe 
 has been good enough to translate for me, is 
 taken from the Geneva edition, vol. 1, pp. 729, 
 7-30. 
 
 Professor Stowe said, that he pledged his rep- 
 utation as a scholar and as an honest man for 
 the correctness of the version here given. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said he was perfectly satisfied. 
 
 Pages 729, 30. 'Tunetin distinguishes six sorts of 
 necessity — 'The fifth, he says is moral necessity 'seu 
 servitutis,' which arises from habits, good or evil, and 
 the presentation of objects to their faculties. For such 
 is the nature of moral habits, that, however the ac- 
 quisition of them might have been in our power, yet 
 when our will has once become imbued with them, 
 they cannot be laid aside, nor their exercise avoided, 
 as the philosopher rightly teaches. Elh. Lib. iii. 
 cap. V. Hence it happens that the will, free in it- 
 self, is so determined to good or evil that it cannot 
 but do good or evil. Hence flows the bondage of sin 
 or righteousness.' 
 
 Page 731. 'And hence it is plain that our adversa.r 
 ries, especially Bellarrnine, falsely criminate us, be- 
 cause they say that the will is in bondage in a state 
 of sin, as though its freedom was destroyed: For it is 
 so declared in the scripture above, (Rom. vi, 17, 18) 
 and indeed with a twofold limitation: — Ist, that the 
 bondage is understood not absolutely and physically, 
 but relatively after the fall, in a state of sin: — 2d, 
 Not simply respecting every external object, natural, 
 civil^ or moral, but principally concerning a spiritual 
 object good of itself; in which manner the inability 
 10 good is the more strongly asserted, but the essence 
 of freedom is not destroyed, because although the 
 sinner is so enveloped with sin, that he cannot but 
 sin, nevertheless he doth not cease to sin, most free- 
 ly and with the utmost liberty. Hence Jansenius (?) 
 
 acknowledges thai Luther was not the|flrst to Invent 
 the name of the enslaved will ('servi arbitrii') but 
 followed Augustine, who had said the same thing con- 
 cerning it long before; and he censures those who 
 pretend that the phrase, enslaved will, was unknown 
 before Luther. Augustine says 'the will is free, but 
 not enfranchised, free to righteousness, but the slave 
 of sin, in which men are involved through various 
 huriftil lusts, some more, and others less, but all wick- 
 ed,' and again, "man using his free will wickedly de- 
 stroys both himself and it." 
 
 Page 939. ' The question is not concerning the 
 power or natural faculty of will, 'a qua est ipsum velle 
 vel nolle,' which may be called first power and 
 the material principle of moral action; for this always 
 remains in man, and by it he is distinguished from the 
 brutes; but concerning his moral disposition to will 
 rightly, which is called second power or the formal 
 principle of those actions; for, as to will, results from 
 natural power, so, to will rightly, results from moral 
 disposition. 
 
 Page 752. Therefore man, laboring under such 
 an inability is falsely said to be able to believe if he 
 wishes; as if faith, which Paul so expressly declares 
 to be the gift of God (Acts ii, 8) were ek ton eph 
 eemin. For, although the phrase may, to some ex- 
 tent, be tolerated, understood concerning the natural 
 power of willing, which, in whatever condition we 
 may he, is never taken away from us, insomuch as by 
 it we are distinguished from the brutes; yet it can- 
 not be admitted when we speak of the moral disposi- 
 tion of the will to good, not only to willing, but to 
 willing rightly, concerning which alone, there is con- 
 troversy between us and our adversaries; unless we 
 go over to Pelagius, who asserted that a good will 
 was placed in the power of man. 
 
 Page 751. The inability of man as a sinner is not 
 to be called moral simply, in contradistinction to na- 
 tural, as that is said by moral philosophers to be moral- 
 ly impossible which is such by custom (?) rather than 
 by nature, and which indeed is done with difficulty, 
 yet is done sometimes and ought not to be reckoned 
 among those things which are absolutely impossible; 
 since lliat inability is to us innate and inseparable. — 
 Nor is it simply natural as that is natural by which we 
 are accounted neither good nor evil, since it is'certain 
 that inability is both vicious and culpable. Nor as 
 natural is distinguished from voluntary, as there is in a 
 stone or brute a natural inability to speak, because 
 our inability is in the highest sense voluntary — nor 
 as that is called natural which arises from want of 
 faculty or natural powers (as there is in the blind an 
 inability to see, in the paralytic to walk, and in the 
 dead to rise,) because our inability does not exclude, 
 but supposes in man the natural power of understand- 
 ing and willing. Nevertheless, it is but denominated 
 both natural and moral in different respects. 
 
 Moral, 1st. Objectively, because it has respect to 
 moral duties. 2d, As to its origin, because it is broughl! 
 on one's self; which arises from moral corruption, 
 voluntarily acquired by the sin of man. 3d, As to its 
 character (forraaliter) because that is voluntary and 
 culpable, which is founded in a habit of corrupt w'lW. 
 
 It is also natural — 1st, As to its origin, because it 
 is born with us and from nature, not created by God 
 but corrupted by man, for which reason, we are said 
 by Paul to be by nature children of wrath, Eph. ii, 3; 
 and by David to be shapen in iniquity and conceived 
 
53 
 
 in sin (Ps li) as poison is natural to a serpent, or 
 rapacity to a wolf. 
 
 2d. Subjectively, because it infects our whole na- 
 ture and implies a privation of that faculty of doing 
 well, which was at first given to a man and wliich was 
 natural, which was at first original righteousness. 3d. 
 As to the result, because it is unconquered, and in- 
 superable, not less than the mere natural inability in 
 the blind for seeing and in the dead of rising. Por 
 sin.'"ul man is no more able to convert himself than 
 the blind to sec, or the dead to rise. 
 
 Therefore, as it is rightly called moral and volunta- 
 ry to evince the guilt of man and render hira inexcu- 
 sable, so also it is best called natural to aggravate the 
 corruption of man and demonstrate the necessity of 
 grace; for as it is born with man, so it is insuperable 
 to him, and he cannot otherwise shake it off than by 
 the omnijiotent and heart-turning power of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said this was exactly what he be- 
 lieved. 
 
 To which Dr. Beecher replied, then I ask, to 
 what purpose is this controversy to be waged? 
 Why must Dr. Wilson and I continue to fight? 
 Here is Turretin teaching that the natural pow- 
 er of the will has not been superseded by the 
 fall; and Dr. Wilson says he admits this. Why, 
 if he admits it, tlicn we are agreed. And as to 
 man's moral inabilitj', Turretin teaches that it 
 is never superseded, but by the power of the 
 Holy Spirit. Dr. Wilson believes this; and I 
 believe it. I told him, we did not differ; and 
 we do not. I find all that I understand by na- 
 tural ability in Turretin. He finds all that he 
 holds with respect to natural inability in Turre- 
 tin; why then must we contend? and why have 
 we not compared notes long ago? Ah, how 
 much evil might have been prevented. 
 
 My next authority shall be Calvin's commen- 
 tary on that phrase in the 7th chapter of Ro- 
 mans: 'Sold under Sin.' 
 
 I always exclude coercion, for we sin voluntarily; 
 for it would not be sin, unless it were voluntary.' 
 
 Compare also Calvin's Commentary on Rom. v. 
 12^ vi. 12— Eph. ii. 3— Ileb. ix. 7— James i. 13— 
 and many other passages. 
 
 I now refer the court to Howe's Practical 
 Theology, edited by Marsh. Howe was co- 
 temporary with tile assembly of divines at West- 
 minster, and an intimate friend of Dr. Twiss. 
 
 •For notwithstanding the soul's natural capacities 
 before asserted, its moral incapacity, I mean its wick- 
 ed nversation from God, is such as none but God him- 
 self can overcome, nor is that aversation the less cul- 
 pable for that it is so hardly overcome, but the more. 
 It is an aversation of will; and who sees not that ev- 
 ery m:in is more wicked, according as his will is more 
 wickedly bent. Hence his impotency or inability to 
 turn to God, is not such as Ihat he cannot turn if he 
 would; hut it consists in tiiis, that he is not willing.' 
 
 In a note is the following extract from Dr. 
 Twiss, quoted with approbation by Howe: 
 
 'TliG inability to do what is pleasing and acceptable 
 to God, is not a natural, but moral inability; for no 
 faculty of Qur nature is taken away from us by orig- 
 
 inal sin: as saith Augustine. It has taken from no 
 man the faculty of discerning truth. The power still 
 remains by which we can do whatever we choose. Wo 
 say that the natural power of doing anything accord- 
 ing to our will is preserved to all, but no moral pow- 
 er.' 
 
 If I sin and fall, I sin and fall in Dr. Twiss. 
 I have not taught the distinction between natu- 
 ral and moral ability, plainer than he taught it, 
 who was the moderator of the Assembly of 
 Divines, the friend of the Confession, and the 
 model of Calvinism. He tells us how he under- 
 stood that answer in the Catechism: 'No mere 
 man, since the fall, is able in this life, perfectly 
 to keep the commandments of God.' I, and they 
 who hold with me, say, that considered as a free 
 agent, he is able, and as able as ever he was. — 
 But in respect to the aversation of his will, he 
 is not able. His heart is so fully set in him to 
 do evil, that his enmity will never relent and 
 his aversation will never be overcome, till it is 
 overcome by the Spirit of God. He has the 
 most perfect natural ability and the most per- 
 fect moral inability to keep the commandments 
 of God. 
 
 I shall now refer to a work which has the re- 
 commendation of Dr. Green, and Dr. Smith, 
 both Presidents of Princeton College, New Jer- 
 sey, as well as Dr. llodgers and others. Dr. 
 Green, as you know, is called the father of the 
 Presbyterian church; the oldest living minister 
 now in her bounds; a man who has exerted a 
 greater ccclesiaslical influence in the Presbyte- 
 rian church than any other ten men in it: and the 
 man who, of nil other?, is most alarmed by this 
 hercs3- of natural ability; the man who first lifted 
 the note of alarm and commenced this battle 
 with his own brethren, men who for ten and 
 twenty years have stood by his side, contending 
 ag:iinst the common enemy of souls. It is this 
 Dr. Green, wliose cordial sanction has been 
 given to the book I am about to quote, and who 
 has recommended it to the entire confidence of 
 the church. That book is none other than the 
 work of Dr. "Withorspoon, a divine whom Dr. 
 Wilson has himself commended in the very high- 
 est terms. And what does Dr. Witherspoon 
 say: 
 
 'Again, the sinner will perhaps say. But why should 
 the sentence be so severe? The law may be right in 
 ilsolf, but it is hard, or even impossible forme. I 
 have no strength. 1 cannot love the Lord with all 
 my Iieart. I am altogether insufficient for that which 
 is good. Oh, that you would but consider what sort 
 of inability you u Lie under to keep the command- 
 ments of God. Is it natural, oris it moral? Is it 
 really wSnt of ability, or is it only want of will? Is it 
 anything more than the depravity and corruption of 
 your hearts, which is itself criminal, and the source of 
 all actual transgressions? Have you not natural fac- 
 ulties and understanding, will, and affections, a won- 
 derful frame of body and a variety of members? What 
 is it that hinders them all from being consecrated to 
 God ? Arc they not as proper in every respect for 
 his service, as for a baser purpose? When you arc 
 commanded to love (iud with all your heart, this sure- 
 
54 
 
 ly is not commanding more than you can pay. For if 
 you give it not to him, you will give it to something 
 else that is far from being so deserving of it. The 
 law, then, is not impossible, in the strict and proper 
 sense, even to you.' 
 
 Now if I am a heretic, then I say that Dr. 
 Green deserves to be put out of the church ; and 
 that quickly, lest he should die before justice 
 overtakes him; for recotHmending in the very 
 strongest terms, to the confidence of the whole 
 church, such an arch heretic as this. It is a 
 thing not to be endured. The church has come 
 tea high pass indeed; and great must be her 
 danger when works like, these are palmed off 
 upon the world, under the high recommendation 
 of Dr. Green. Now there was but one place 
 where I thought it would be difficult to throw 
 one ray of light. But here tha't spot was en- 
 lightened. For Dr. Witherspoon himself says 
 that 
 
 'Without perplexing ourselves with the meaning of 
 the imputation of Adam's first sin, this we may be 
 sensible of, that tlie guilt of all inheritant corruption 
 must be personal, because it is voluntary and consent- 
 ed to. Of both these things a discovery of the 
 glory of God will powerfully convince the sinner.' 
 
 I shall next refer to Dr. Watts: 
 
 'Man has lost, not his natural power to obey the 
 law; he is bound then, as far as natural powers will 
 leach. I own his faculties are greatly corrupted by 
 vicious inclinations, or sinful propensities, which has 
 been happily called by our divines a moral inability 
 to fulfil the law, rather than a natural impossibility of 
 it.' 
 
 And now I come to the testimony of Dr. 
 Spring, ofNew York. Dr. Springis wellknown 
 as a distinguished theologian and minister of a 
 large congregation in the city of New York; 
 and in all the early period of his ministry, was 
 engaged in what might be called a virulent con- 
 troversy with the men of the old school, who all 
 considered him as dangerous heretic, because he 
 maintained and defended the doctrine of man's 
 natural ability. He was then considered as the 
 great champion of that doctrine in the cifj. For 
 reasons which I have never been able to ex- 
 plain, he has since associated himself in action 
 with the men of the old school. Still, however, 
 he has not changed his principles. I have of- 
 ten heard of his saying that his doctrinal senti- 
 ments were in no respect altered. It would 
 therefore seem that there are some heretics who 
 maybe tolerated in the church, that is, provided 
 they vote right. 
 
 Dr- Wilson here inquired, to how late a pe- 
 riod Dr. Beechor referred, when he Said that 
 Dr. Spring had not changed his opinions? 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied, that he referred to a pe- 
 riod extending to within two years since. At 
 that time Dr. Spring had not changed his opin- 
 ion respecting doctrine, but only in regard to 
 discipline and new measures. Besides which he 
 could refer to more recent evidence, which was 
 contained in a work on infant character, publish- 
 
 ed by Dr. Spring about a year ago, in which he 
 expressly asserts the voluntariness of all sin ; and 
 yet that heretic, is at this day appointed by the 
 General Assembly to represent the Presbyterian 
 church in Europe; an arch' heretic, who ought 
 to be turned out of the church with me. I liope 
 I shall be safe till he gets home, and then we 
 can be tried and turned out together. 
 
 'Seriously considered it is impossible to sin without 
 acting voluntarily. The divine law requires nothing 
 but voluntary obedience, and forbids nothing but vol- 
 untary disobedience. As men cannot sin without 
 acting, nor act without choosing to act, so they 
 must act voluntarily in sinning.' Spring's Essays, p. 
 120. 
 
 This nature of sin, as actual and vo'untaryy 
 he carries out in its application to infants. He 
 says : 
 
 'EveYy child of Adam is a sinner [an actual sinner] 
 from the moment he becomes a child of Adam. He 
 sins not in deed nor word, but in thought. The thought 
 of foolishness is sin. * * * Who ever beard or 
 conceived of a living immortal soul without natural 
 faculties and moral dispositions? Every infant that 
 has attained maturity enough to have a soul, has such 
 a soul as this. It is a soul which perceives, reasons, 
 remembers, feels, chooses, and has the faculty of 
 judging of its own moral dispositions.' Spring on 
 Native Depravity, pp. 10, and 14. 
 
 It is the doctrine of our church that there is a 
 difiference between original and actual sin. It 
 would seem that Dr. Spring denies this distinc- 
 tion; and holds all sin to be the voluntary trans- 
 gression of known law. 
 
 My next authority is Matthew Henry in his 
 Commentary upon Ezokiel xviii. 31: 
 
 'Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why 
 will ye die, O house of Israel.' We must do our en- 
 deavor, and then God will not be wanting to us to give 
 us his grace. St. Austin well explains this precept: 
 God does not enjoin impossibilities, but by his com- 
 mands admonishes us to do what is in our power, and 
 to pray for what is not. * * The reason why sin- 
 ners die is, because they will die, they will go down 
 the way that leads to death, and not come up to the 
 terms on which life is offered; herein sinners, especial- 
 ly sinners of the house of Israel, are most unreasona- 
 ble and act most unaccountably.' 
 
 There is no commentary in the English lan- 
 guage which from the lime when it was written 
 until now, has embodied the suffrages of the 
 christian church to a greater extent than this 
 work of Matthew Henry. I could, I suppose if 
 it were necessary, gather up bushels of recom- 
 mendations which have been written by our first 
 ministers to aid its circulation. I will now pre- 
 sent to the court, a work written by Dr. J. P. 
 Wilson, of Philadelphia. 
 
 Dr. Wilson here inquired on what evidence 
 this work was ascribed to that author. 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied, that it was universally 
 ascribed to him by his friends, and the author- 
 ship had never been disavowed. 
 
 'No mere man is able, either ondmself, or by any 
 grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the com- 
 
55 
 
 flMndments of God, &.c. The ability which is here 
 tienied, is cvidenlly of the moral liind, because tlie 
 aid of tlie inability is supposed to bo grace, which 
 adds no new faculties. The passage taken ftom the 
 Confession of Faith, chap. xvi. is a representation of 
 the same thing, ''i'his ability to do good works, is 
 not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of 
 God.' Here the ability spoken of is thiit which the 
 saint has, and the sinner has not; and is derived from 
 the Spirit of God; it is therefore merely the effect of 
 regenerating grace, which changes the heart, removes 
 the prejudices and thus enligliteiig the understanding; 
 the law itaclfought to convince such minds of ihcir in- 
 ability to render an acceptable righteousness, and thus 
 lead them to Christ. In all these instances, the ina- 
 bility consists not in the natural, that is physical de- 
 fects, either of mind or body; if it were such, it would 
 excuse; but it consists in the party's aversion to holi- 
 ness. This is also clear from another passage cited in 
 the essay, page 15, from the Confession of Faith. — 
 *A natural man, beicg altogether averse from that 
 which is good; and dead in sin, is not able, by his own 
 strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself 
 thereto.' Here the words 'deadin sin,'' express a 
 iiigher degree of that 'aversion to good,'' vih'ich htid 
 been predicted of man in his natural and unrenewed 
 state, and suppose the party to have no more dis|K)si- 
 tion to things spiritual and holy than a dead carcase 
 possesses towards objects of sense. The inability or 
 want of strength here monlioneJ, is affirmed of tlic 
 natural man; and his inability, or that circumstance 
 in which it consists, is pointed out expressly by ilio 
 intercalary member, 'being, altogether averse from 
 that which is good, and dead in sin.' Language can 
 scarcely bo found more clearly to show, tliat tlie 
 on\y cu]pah]e inability OT want of strt'iigth in the sin- 
 ner, lies in his aversion to that whicU is good.'' pp. 
 14, 15. 
 
 'No man can come unless the Father draws him. — 
 Here the difficulty lies in applying the use of the 
 word can. The terms express that the inability is re- 
 moved, when the Father draws him. This drawing 
 by the influence of the Spirit; and the conseqient 
 power of coming to Christ is not of walking, but uf 
 believing on, which includes desiring Christ. If this 
 drawing bo regeneration, and if this regoneratron 
 produces no new faculties, but life and activity, or 
 moral ability, instead of indisposition to holiness; 
 then the inability expressed in the pa.'sage is also of a 
 moral kind, and may be presumed to be the same 
 which the Savior meant when, on another occasion, he 
 said, 'Yo will not come to mo that ye might have life.' 
 p. 17. 
 
 Every real convert l.iys these natural faculties un- 
 der contribution. His disappointment arises, not so 
 much from a defect in his natural powers, which are 
 as well suited to tin- service of God as of sin; his 
 chief mistake lies in depending upon his supposed 
 moral abilities, the nature and sirengtii of his own 
 purposes, resolutions, and performances. But when 
 lie finds his purposes chant,'e, his resolutions fail, and 
 h'\a performances all tainted with sin, and that while 
 Ills natural powers arc sufficiently strong to bring 
 him into condcnmation, he has no moral ability, or 
 strength of inclination to God and holiness to direct 
 Lis ollorls towards proper objects; he is then di.spns- 
 cd to sink into the dust, acknowledge his guilt and 
 impolcncy, and cast himself upon the mercy of God 
 ill Christ, p. ~~. 
 
 It was remarked by the prosecutor, that among 
 all the authorities I have produced in support of 
 my exposition of the Confession of Faith, I had 
 quoted only a single author from the Presbyte- 
 rian church. I have now brought forward a 
 number. He also said, after passing a high and 
 merited eulogium on Dr. Witherspoon, that in 
 all his extensive works, but a single sentence was 
 to be found which could be pressed into my ser- 
 vice, and that that one sentence had been seized 
 upon vvith avidity. I have now presented addi- 
 tional testimonies from Dr. Witherspoon, and 
 could easily adduce much more. 
 
 Dr. Dickinson, a cotemporary of his in New 
 Jersey, and a cotemporary also with Dr. Green 
 in the early part of his life, has this sentiment 
 on the point of discussion: 'Let inability be pro- 
 perly denominated and called obstinacy.' This 
 was a divine of admitted and unimpeachable or- 
 thodoxy, a man of eminent abilities, a friend to 
 revivals of religion, and one of the pillars of the 
 Presbyterian church. 
 
 President Davis, the pioneer and planter of 
 Prcsbyterianism in Virginia, afterward president 
 of Princeton college, one of the most pungent, 
 popular and succcssfu! of preachers, inquires, 
 'What is inability but unwillingness?' 
 
 Edwards, the youiii^'cr, president of Union col- 
 lege, was a Presbyterian, and what does he say? 
 To the question whether the moral inability 
 which his father (aught, can be removed by the 
 sinner, his answer was, 'Yes: and the moment 
 you deny this, you change the whole character 
 of the inability together with the whole charac- 
 ter of llic man; fur thru his inability ceases to 
 be ohstiiKic;-. and becomes physical incapaci- 
 ty.' 
 
 The Assembly's narrative for 18 ID, declares 
 that the destruction of the finally impenitent is 
 charged 'wholly upon their own unwillingness to 
 accept of the merciful provision made in the gos- 
 pel.' And now I invite the attention of the 
 court to a volume of original sermons, by Presby- 
 terian ministers in the valley of the Mississippi, 
 viz: Joshua !>. Wilson, D.D., Daniel Ilayden, 
 J. H. Brooks, James BIytho, D.D., Sayres Gaz- 
 Icy, David Monfort, Reuben Frame, Joshua T. 
 Russell, John Matthews, D.D., A. McFarlane. 
 I will quote from a sermon by Dr. Matthews: 
 
 Our case though in some respects it bears a strik- 
 ing resemblance to those who sleep in the grave, yet 
 in others is widely difTcroii;. They make no opposi- 
 tion to the active pursuits of life. Nor does any blame 
 attach to them on account of their insensibility. Not 
 so, however, with us. We have eyes, but we see 
 not; ears, but we hear not; we have indeed all the in- 
 tellectual faculties and moral powers which belong to 
 rational beings, but they arc devoted to the world; 
 they are employed against God and his government. 
 Instead of love, the heart is influenced by enmity against 
 God. Instead of repentance, there is hardness of 
 heart. Instead of faith byj^ which th? Savior is receiv- 
 ed, there is unbelief by which with all his blessings he 
 is rejected. We possess indeed all the natural facul- 
 ties which God demands in his service, but we aro 
 
56 
 
 without the moral power. We have not the disposi- 
 tion, the desire, to employ them ia his service. This 
 want of disposition, instead of furnishing the shadow 
 of excuse for our unbelief and impenitence, is the very 
 essence of sin, the demonstration of our guilt. Here 
 then is worli for Omnipotence itself Here is not on- 
 ly insensibility to be quickened, but here is opposi- 
 tion, here is enmity to be destroyed. The art and 
 maxims of men may change, in some degree, the out- 
 ward appearances, but they never can reach the seat 
 of the disease. There it will remain and there it will 
 operate, after all that created wisdom and power can 
 do. That power which can start the pulse of spirit- 
 ual life within us, must reach and control the very or- 
 igin of thought, must change our very motives. Our 
 case would be hopeless if our restoration depended on 
 the skill and efforts of created agents. 
 
 I now beg leave to adduce the testimony of 
 Dr. Wilson himself, and I do not know that I 
 should be so confident of being able to convert 
 him, if I was not aware that he was. converted 
 already. This passage from Dr. Matthews goes 
 the whole length of all that I hold in respect to 
 natural ability. If this is not heresy, it is all I 
 "mean and all I teach, or ever did teach. If Dr. 
 Wilson is not opposed to this, then he has mis- 
 understood me, and he and I think alike. If he 
 agrees to this, then he and I do agree , for I chal- 
 lenge man or angel to find anythinglike a discre- 
 pancy, and I challenge him to find any. That 
 he does agree to this is manifest, and two things 
 whichare equal to the same, are equal to each 
 other. In the notes he says: 
 
 'Thus it is evident that without conference or cor- 
 respondence, or even personal acquaintance, there are 
 ministers in the Presbyterian church, who can and do 
 speak the same things, who can and do speak the lan- 
 guage of the true reformers in all nges. May the Lord 
 increase their number and bind up ihe breach of his 
 people.' 
 
 Yes, 'there are ministers in the Presbyterian 
 church, who can and do speak the same things.' 
 The Lord increase their number! 
 
 I shall now adduce the testimony of Dr. Scott, 
 in his reply to Tomline. There is no commenta- 
 tor whose works have enjoyed such a circulation 
 as those of Dr. Scott. I could show recommen- 
 dations-of his works by Dr. Green, Dr. Living- 
 ston, Drs. Miller, Alexander, and a host ofother 
 prominent men, both in the old school and the 
 new. And yet Dr. Scott's heretical opinions 
 are twisted in everywhere through these works, 
 and still the good has some how so covered up 
 the heresy, that good men have recommended 
 the whole together. The whole church has been 
 eating and drinking of the mess and she is not 
 dead yet. 
 
 I appealed in the outset to the standard, wri- 
 ters of the church as evidence of what had 
 been her belief, touching the great points in 
 controversy between Dr. Wilson and myself; 
 and I now leave it ta^the Presbytery to say, 
 whether I have not produced testimonies from 
 the most distinguished and responsible divines 
 of the church, and whether the extracts I have 
 
 read, do not prove the position which I set out 
 to prove. My argument is this: The fact that 
 these writers held'the opinions which they have 
 here declared, I do not bring as proof absolute 
 that the Confession of Faith teaches as they 
 held; but that it is altogetherprobable the fram- 
 ers of that instrument belonging to this class of 
 men, and standing in the same rank with them, 
 did not teach doctrines in direct contradiction 
 to this. I have brought down these testimonies 
 to the present time, because these expositions 
 throw light upon the pages of the Confession, by 
 showing the impression which it made on these 
 writers, and the sense in which they received 
 it. It would be one of the strongest anomalies 
 in the whole history of the human mind, that 
 men who knew all about the controversy of Au- 
 gustine and Pelagius, as well as the controver- 
 sies which preceded, should, when they sat down 
 to make a Confession of Faith, go directly against 
 the whole stream of the Faith of the church down 
 to this day. 
 
 I have but one other argument in support of 
 the doctrine of Natural Ability, and that is the 
 Bible; but as I am myself fatigued, arid presume 
 that the court must be so too, I should prefer 
 entering upon that subject at our next sitting. 
 
 Presbytery complied with Dr. Beecher's re- 
 quest, and occupied the residue of the day, in 
 other business. 
 
 Monday Morning, June 16th. — Presbytery 
 met, and was opened with prayer. 
 
 Dr. Beecher resumed his defence. 
 
 The charge is, that in teaching the natural 
 ability of man, as a free agent, to obey the gos- 
 pel, I have taught a heresy, contrary to the Con- 
 fession of Faith and to the Bible. I admit that I 
 have taught the doctrine, and I justify. My justifica- 
 tion is, that the doctrine of man's natural ability, as 
 a free agent, to obey the gospel, is taught in the 
 Confession of Faith. This position I have en- 
 deavored to sustain: 
 
 1. By. an exposition of the language of the 
 Confession itself. 
 
 2. Corroborated by the analogy of cause and 
 effect in the natural and moral world. 
 
 3. By the intuitive perceptions of men, that 
 ability is indispensable to moral obligation to 
 obey. 
 
 4. By the universal consciousness of the ca- 
 pacity of choice with the power of contrary 
 choice. 
 
 5. That the analysis of mind by metaphysi- 
 cians and mental philosophers have led them to 
 define free agencyasbeing the capacity of choice, 
 with the power of contrary choice. 
 
 6. By showing that all the faculties known or 
 conceivable are as real and manifest as the five 
 senses. 
 
 7. That the loss of one of them, terminates 
 responsibility in that respect, and much more the 
 loss of the whole. 
 
 8. By the public sentiment of the world, all 
 men, when they suppose they have done well, 
 
57 
 
 claim desert, and those who have done ill, feel- 
 ing and knowing that they deserve punishment. 
 
 9. From all forms of government, family and 
 civil government; and the notorious fact, that 
 an attempt to govern man by force, as if he 
 were not a free agent, debases him, while under 
 the judicious training of intellect and moral 
 government he rises. 
 
 My last topic, in corroboration of the propri- 
 ety of my mode of explaining the Confession 
 of Faith, is drawn from the Bidle. 
 
 1 have said that the Confession of Faith is an 
 epitome in human language, of the meaning 
 which the subscribers to itattachijd to the Bible, 
 in respect to various points of doctrine. But 
 it is not the Bible, but merely an exposition of 
 the Bible in which we agree, as the bond of 
 union and fellowship. For communion upon a 
 general profession of belief in the Bible, with- 
 out any exposition, would enclose in the church 
 all the conflicting elements of strife comprehend- 
 ed in all heresies and errors of all denomina- 
 tions, and would be utterly destructive of all the 
 ends of church-fellowship. Like the Confes- 
 sion itself, unexplained, it would let in every 
 hody and every thing. When, therefore, an in- 
 dividual, who has subscribed it, doubts or hesi- 
 tates as to its meaning, he goes to the Bible: when 
 two of these subscribers differ, if they do their 
 duty, they confer together, and compare their 
 mutual expositions with the Bible, and pray to- 
 gether, in order to ascerlnin whose understand- 
 ing of the instrument is scriptural; and if they 
 cannot agree, the case, in the form of a charge, 
 is brought before Presbytery. The Presbytery 
 examines the conflicting expositions, comparing 
 them with the language of the Confession and 
 with the Bible, and in this manner the question 
 is handed up to the highest judicatory of the 
 church, and there settled by an exposition of the 
 Confession in conformity to a fair interpretation 
 of the Bible. This view of the subject is con- 
 firmed by the Confession itself, chap. i. sec. 10. 
 
 ' Tlie Supreme Judge, by whicli all controversies 
 of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of 
 councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines ofmen, 
 and private spirits, are to bo examined, and in whose 
 sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy 
 Spirit speaking in the ISciipturc. 
 
 Here the Confession teaches the fallibility of 
 all human standards, and the infallibility of the 
 Bible alone. It is confirmed by the Bible it- 
 self, for Jesus, the great teacher, referred the 
 Pharisees, for the trial of his own doctrine, to the 
 Bible, saying to them, ' search the Scriptures.' — 
 And although inspired apostles preached, the 
 Bercansarccommended for testing their doctrine 
 by the Bibli'. 
 
 I have dwelt on this subject, because it is im- 
 portant to give to the Bible its place, and to the 
 Confession its place, in the moral firmament, 
 and because I have heard seme men sneer at 
 our appeal from their exposition of the Confes- 
 sion of Faith to the Bible, as if it were an ap- 
 
 8 
 
 peal from the Confession itself, and a presump- 
 tive evidence of heresy. I shall not appeal 
 from what the Confession teaches, believing it 
 to be in accordance with the Bible. But when 
 my brother expounds its linguage in one man- 
 ner, and I in another, I appeal to the Bible, in 
 confirmation of my own exposition. God for- 
 bid that there should be no appeal from a fallible 
 exposition of the Confession of Faith to the 
 word of God. You might as well put out (he 
 sun, and take a star for your guide. If your 
 needle is supposed to be defective, it is to be 
 brought to the magnet, and there tried again 
 and again. I observe then, 
 
 I. That the Bible nowhere teaches the 
 natural inability of man to obey the gospel. 
 The words ^ cannot^ '•unable^ &c. do not teach 
 it necessarily, because they are used in all lan- 
 guages, to characterize an inability which is not 
 natural; and of course the simple word, without 
 reference to its subject and connexion, decides 
 nothing. There is an obvious reason why, 
 when such words are applied to moral inability, 
 they are to be held as liguralivo. The Scrip- 
 tures borrow terms derived from an inability 
 which is really natural, in order to show the 
 certainty of the results of moral inability. — 
 They declare that such is the state of the will 
 that a continuity of wrong choice may be just 
 as certain as if there existed a natural inability 
 to choose right; and therefore language derived 
 from natural necessity is brought over into the 
 moral world, and there figuratively applied to an 
 inability which is moral. With this lamp in our 
 hand, all becomes clear. Whenever the Bible 
 speaks of inability in moral things, it speaks of 
 the sin of the will, its aversation from good. — 
 Yet where has my brother Wilson, in the whole 
 course of his argument in support of his char- 
 ges against me, ever once defined the term 
 ' cannot'? where has he recognized this obvious 
 distinction, and themanncrof its application? — 
 He has held me down to a single meaning of the 
 term, which meaning he himself assumes, and 
 then denies to me all right of explanation. As 
 soon as the word is explained, he is gone. — 
 These words, like all other words, are to be tried 
 by the principles of exposition, by the establish- 
 ed usiis loquenJi, and not by their sound on the 
 tympanum of the ear; or else Jesus Christ might 
 as well have spoken Greek to men who under- 
 stood nothing but English. Take an illustra- 
 tion on this subject: Suppose an assault was com- 
 mitted; the case is carried into court, where the 
 assault is admitted, and the only question arising 
 is a question of damages. A witness appears, 
 and is asked, Did you see this assault? Yes, I 
 saw A. strike B. How hard did he strike him? 
 I donf t know; I can't exactly tell how hard. A. 
 was a very nervous man. ' Oh,' cries the lawyer 
 in favor of A. ' if he was a very nervous man, 
 he must have been too feeble to hurt him much. 
 Another witness is introduced, and asked. How 
 hard did A. strike B.? I can't exactly tell, he 
 
58 
 
 says. What sort of a man was A. 1 Oh, he was 
 a very stout, brawny man; a very nervous, athle- 
 tic man. ' Then,' says the attorney on the oth- 
 er side,' if he was a nervous man. no doubt he 
 must have hurt my client exceedingly, and he 
 is entitled to heavy damages.' On this a dispute 
 arises as to the testimony, and it turns on the 
 meaning of the word '•nervous.^ One of the at- 
 torney's brings into court Webster's Dictionary, 
 and shows that nervous means of weak nerve, 
 feeble: and there he slops. Would this settle 
 the question? Would this determine the mean- 
 ing of the testimony? Just so with the word in- 
 ability. It has two meanings, according as it is 
 applied. It may either mean a total wanf of 
 power, or a total want of inclination. Yet Dr. 
 Wilson allows it but one meaning, and charges 
 me with being a heretic, because J maintain that 
 it sometimes has a different sense. Now I might 
 just as well charge Dr. Wilson with being a 
 heretic, and with denying moral inability; 
 and on his own principle of interpretation, the 
 proof of his heresy would be quite as abundant 
 as of my own. 
 
 2. But secondly; the subject, and the circum- 
 stances of the case, forbid the construction of a 
 natural impossibility, as relating to man in the 
 caseof dutj', because the subject is admitted to 
 be a free agent, and free agency is known and 
 defined, and by the Confession itself is admitted 
 to be, the capacity of choice, with power of con- 
 trary choice* A free agent to whom spiritual 
 obedience is a natural impossibility is a contra- 
 diction. By the laws of exposition,! am enti- 
 tled to all the collateral evidence which can be 
 thrown upon (he meaning of the Confession, 
 from the several sources of expository knowledge 
 already enumerated, and which I will not here 
 recapitulate. Dr. Wilson insists that man is able 
 to do nothing — but nothing is a slender founda- 
 tion on which to rest the justice of the Eternal 
 Throne, in condemning men to everlasting pun- 
 ishmentjund feeble indeed would be God's gripe 
 upon the conscience. But it wiil be easy to show 
 that the strongest passages relied on to prove 
 Tiatural inability are forbidden to be interpreted 
 in that sense, by the established laws of exposi- 
 tion. For example, it is said, John vi. 44: ' No 
 man can come unto me, except the Father which 
 hath sent me, draw him.' The nature of the 
 inability here declared is indicated by the kind 
 of drawing which is to overcome it. But what 
 
 does the Confession teach on that subject? 
 
 ' God maketh the reading, but especially the 
 preaching of his word, an effectual means of 
 convincing and converting sinners.' ' I will 
 draw them by the cords of love and with the 
 ■ bands of a man.' That's the drawing: with the 
 bands of a man ; not by the attraction of gravity. — 
 Suppose the planets should stop in their course, 
 would God, do you think; attempt to overcome 
 the vis inlerliae of matter by the ' reading, and 
 especially the preaching of his word'? Would 
 he send the ten commandments io start them? 
 
 or would he ' draw them with the cords of love 
 and the bands of a man,' to move onward in 
 theirorbits? Yet the Confession, and the Cate- 
 chism, and the Bible, ail as certainly teach tha,t 
 the impediment to be overcome is over- 
 come by moral means: by the truth, by 
 the word of God, by the reading, and esr 
 pecially the preaching, of his word, made 
 effectual by the Holy Spirit. It cannot, 
 therefore be any natural inability; any such ina- 
 bility as renders believing a natural impossibili- 
 ty, which is removed in regeneration. But it 
 is said,' the carnal mind is enmity against God,' 
 and that this is an involuntary condition of mind. 
 But is it a natural impossibility for an enemy of 
 God to be reconciled to him? The text does 
 not say that fallen man cannot be reconciled to 
 God; but it says that the carnal mind cannot be 
 subject to the law: ' It is not subject to the law 
 of God, neither indeed can be.' Carnality can 
 never be so modified as to become obedience. 
 Again, the ' natural man receiveth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God, neither can he 
 know them, because they are spiritually discern- 
 ed.' Does this mean that an unconverted man 
 can have no just intellectual conceptions of the 
 gospel, of truth, and his duty, in order to his 
 obeying it? How then can he be any more to 
 blame than the heathen, who have never heard 
 of Christ? And what better condition are men 
 in, with the Bible which they cannot understand, 
 than the heathen are with no Bible at all? But 
 if by receiving and knowing be meant, a willing 
 reception and an experimental knowledge, 
 which is a common use of the tern>s, then the 
 text teaclies simply, that until the heart is chang- 
 ed, there can be no experimental religion in the 
 soul; that a holy heart is indispensable, not to 
 intellectual perception but to spiritual discern- 
 ment, to Christian experience. 
 
 II. The Bible not only does not teach the 
 natural inability of man to obey the gospel, but 
 it teaches directly the contrary. The moral 
 law itself bounds the requisition of love by the 
 strength of the natural capacity of the subject. 
 Thou shall love the Lord thy God, with what? 
 with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and 
 with all thy mind, and with what else? with all 
 thy STRENGTH. But if a man has no strength, 
 how is he bound by such a command as this? — 
 In the same manner, constitutional powers, bear- 
 ing such a relation to obedience as constitutes 
 obligation, are recognized in the gospel. See 
 Isaiah v. I, 2, 3, 4. Was there nothing in the 
 soil and culture of this vineyard which rendered 
 fruit, in respect to the soil, a natural possibility? 
 But the vineyard was the house of Israel, the 
 owner was God, and the fruit demanded was 
 evangelical obedience: and God, the owner, 
 decided that what he had done rendered obe- 
 dience practicable and punishment just. He 
 calls upon the common sense and common jus- 
 tice of the universe to judge between him and 
 his vineyard. He asks whether be had not ^ 
 
59 
 
 jnst ri ght to expect grapes, and declares that the 
 bringing forth of wild grapes was a thing enor- 
 mous; and so enormous, that he goes on to pro- 
 nounce judgment upon his vineyard. 
 
 So in the parable of the talents: The owner 
 committed a certain portion of his money to eve- 
 ry man according to his several ability. Now 
 these servants again, represent the Jewish na- 
 tion. The talents represent gospel privileges; 
 the improvement to be made was believing, and 
 the misimprovemcnt was sloth and unbelief. The 
 trust was graduated in proportion to the ability 
 of each man. There was ability; therefore, the 
 servant who improved his trust, received a re- 
 ward. But the servant who made excuses, 
 pleaded his nat'iral inability: I knew that thou 
 wert a hard master, reaping where thou hadst 
 not sown, and gathering where thou hadst 
 not strewed; (worse than the task-masters of 
 Egypt); and I was afraid. I dared not under- 
 take to do anything with my talent. I thought 
 the safest way would be to hide it, and run no 
 risk. But his Lord said to him: Thou wicked 
 and slothful servant, thou knewest that I was a 
 tyrant, demanding the improvement of gifts not 
 bestowed. How could you suppose, then, that 
 1 would not exact the improvement of what was 
 given ? Why are you not ready to pay me the 
 interest on my money? why did you not put it to 
 the exchangers? and then I should have received 
 my own with its results. Do I demand eflfect- 
 without causes? Take him away, thrust him ins 
 to outer darkness: he has libelled his Maker, he 
 has slandered his God! 
 
 III. The broad principle is laid down in 
 the Bible, that ability is the ground and measure 
 of obligation. According lo that which a man 
 hath, and not according to that which he hath 
 not; to whom much is given, of him shall much 
 be required, but to whom little is given, of him 
 shall little be required, is the language of the 
 equitable Ruler of the world. But if ability is 
 not needful to obligation, why observe this rule? 
 why not reverse it? Why not require little of 
 him to whom much is given, and much from 
 him to whom little is given? Present this 
 principle to any man but an idiot, and see what 
 he will say to such a proceeding? There is not 
 a human being whose sense of justice would not 
 revolt from it. And shall man be more just than 
 God? Nor is the principle of graduating re- 
 sponsibility by ability, a limited rule of the divine 
 government, applicable only in particular cases; 
 the rule is general; it is universal; it applies to 
 every free agent in the universe. 
 
 IV. The manner in which all excuses are 
 treated in Scripture, which are founded on the 
 plea of inability, confirms ourexposition. There 
 have been impenitent sinners who were as or- 
 thodox on this subject as Dr. Wilson. In the 
 time of the prophet Jeremiah, there were those 
 who perverted God's decrees, as creating the 
 unavoidable necessity of sinning. They said 
 they could not help it. But God, by his prophet, 
 
 instead of conceding the point, denied it with 
 indignation. 
 
 Behold, ye trust in lying word^, that cannot profit. 
 Will ye steal, murder, and commilt adultery, and 
 swear falsely, and burn incense unio Bial, and walk 
 after oilier gods wliom ye know not; And conie and 
 stand before me in this house, wliicli is called by 
 my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these 
 abominitioDS? Jer. vii. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 Docs he approve of men's reasoning, when 
 they say, God has decreed it, and God executes 
 his decrees, and a resistless fate moves us on to 
 evil. Far from it. In what stronger language 
 could the Lord God speak to hardened and 
 impudent men, who laid their sins at his door? 
 Now the fall itself was some how comprehend- 
 ed in God"s decrees; and if it be true that the 
 fall took away all man's natural ability, wherein 
 were those Jews wrong? Their excuse was 
 that their sins were produced by the fatality 
 of God's decrees. They were delivered to do all 
 these abominations. Their fathers had eaten 
 sour grapes and the children's teeth were set 
 on edge. By the sin of Ad.im they had lost all 
 free agency, and therefore they were not to 
 blame; it was all right and just as it should be; 
 an inexorable fate drove them on, and how could 
 they resist the Almighty? And if God did in- 
 deed require spiritual obedience from men who 
 lay ill a state of natural impotency, how is it 
 that he frowned so indignantly, when they plead- 
 ed their impotence in bar of judgment? 
 
 Again, in Ezk. xxxiii. 10, we have the follow- 
 ing language: 
 
 Therefore, O Ihou son of man, speak unto tiie houso 
 of Israel, 'I'liiis yc speak, saying, if our transgressions 
 and our si s be on ns, and we pine away in them, bow 
 should we then live? 
 
 Now, suppose they had been born blind, and 
 God had commanded them to see, and they had 
 replied. Our blindness and darkness sits heavily 
 upon us, and we pine away in it, and it is im- 
 possible for us to see, how then can we escape thy 
 displeasure? Would God in such a case have 
 answered: 
 
 'I have no pleasure in your blindness, which it ia 
 impossible for you to remove. As I live, saith tha 
 Lord God, I have no pleasure in your blindness, there- 
 fore open your eyes and see ye?' 
 
 Does God call men to turn, when a natural 
 impossibilit\' lies in the way, and punish them 
 forever, for not turning? That is not like God. 
 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 
 Tiie representations of the Bible attach obliga- 
 tion and accountability to a free agent as being 
 able to choose both ways; as having ability to 
 choose life, or to choose death. For what is 
 written in Deut. xxx. II — 20: 
 
 For this commandment, which I command thee this 
 day, it is not hidden from thee, neither w it far off. 
 It is not in heaven, that thou sliouldst say, who shall 
 go up for us 10 heaven, and bring it unto us, that wo 
 may hear it, and do it? Neither w it beyond the sea, 
 that thou shouldst say, who shall go over (he sea for 
 
60 
 
 us, and bring it unto us, that we may heai; it, and do rt? 
 But the word is very nigh unto ihee, in thy mouth, 
 and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. See, I have 
 set before thee this day life and good, and death and 
 evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord 
 thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his cora- 
 mnndments and his statutes and his judgments, that 
 tiiou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God 
 shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to pos- 
 sess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt 
 not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other 
 gods, and serve Ihem; 1 denounce unto you this day, 
 that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not pro- 
 long your days upon the land, whither thou passest 
 over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaveii and 
 earth to record this day against you, that I have set 
 before you life and death, blessing and cursing: there- 
 fore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live : 
 That thou raayest love the Lord thy God, and tliat 
 thou mayest obey his voice, and that ihou mayest 
 cleave unto him; (for he is thy life and the length of 
 thy days) that thou mayest dwell in the land which the 
 Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and 
 to Jacob, togive them. 
 
 If it is said that men are free to evil and ac- 
 countable for doing wrong, I answer, if God 
 commanded them to sin, they would be thorough- 
 ly furnished; but if he commands them to stop 
 sinning, and they have no free agency to doit, 
 and it is a natural impossibility, how does free 
 agency to do what is forbidden create obligation 
 to do what is commanded, when they have no 
 power? Besides, could they not sin without 
 ability to sin ? How then can they obey without 
 ability to obey? And if they have free agency 
 to obey, that is just what I am contending for. 
 For they can no more obey without natural 
 power, than they can sin without natural power. 
 If man, as a free agent, has not natural power 
 to obey, then commands, and exhortations, and 
 entreaties, and expostulations might as well be 
 addressed to men without the five senses; com- 
 manding them on pain of eternal death to see, 
 hear, feel, taste, and smell. This argument was 
 used by Pelagius and Arminiu's; and in the forms 
 they urged it was easily answered; they brought 
 it forward to prove not only that man is naturally 
 able to obey God, but to prove that he actually 
 does obey the gospel without special grace, that 
 his will is under no bias from the fall, and that his 
 moral ability is so unperverted,that it is sufficient 
 without regeneration, to do all that God has 
 commanded. Augustine maintained that the 
 will was entirely struck out of balance; Pelagius 
 on the contrary maintained, that it remained in 
 delightful equilibrio, and consequently that no 
 grace of God was needed to determine it to a 
 right choice, insisting that dependence on grace 
 to change the will was inconsistent with com- 
 mands and exhortations, &c. But Augustine, 
 Luther, Calvin, and all the reformers, fully ad- 
 mit the ability of man as a free agent, and deny 
 that his moral inability and dependency as a sin- 
 ner supersedes obligation, invitation, and com- 
 mand. The nature.! ability of man is a point 
 which has never been controverted by the 
 
 church, and only by heretics. The orthodox 
 portion of the church of God never has question- 
 ed it; but always denied moral ability in opposi- 
 tion to the, Arminian and Pelagian heresies. 
 All the leading opinions opposed to Christianity, 
 even such as are acknowledged to be the most 
 heretical, irreligious, and even licentious, as at 
 war with the accountability of man and of the 
 moral government of God, include and rest upon 
 the doctrine of man's natural inability. The 
 materialism o[ the atheist, subjects the soul to 
 the laws of instinct and to elective affinities and 
 attractions of matter. The soul, according to 
 him, is a little, curious, material machine, a sort 
 of patent model for thinking, which goes by the 
 affinities of matter, and which continues to go so 
 long as the pendulum vibratesand the pivots are 
 oiled, till it runs down or the main-spring breaks. 
 This was the doctrine of the French schooL 
 Man, they held to be a mere animal; and as it is 
 a matter of no great consequence whether the 
 life of an animal continues for a little longer or 
 a little shorter period, they proceeded, without 
 any compunction, and on the most philosophical 
 principles, to shed the blood of about two millions 
 of men. The Stoic Fatalists supposed a series 
 of natural causes and effects, which controlled 
 inevitably both the will ofgodsand men. Against 
 this, the declarations of our confession are ex- 
 pressly directed; for in the chapter upon free 
 will, it affirms that the will of God is free, as 
 opposed to fatality, and that the will of man is 
 free, as opposed to natural and inevitable 
 necessity. Take the philosophy of Priestly. 
 lie was a materialist, and held that the soul of 
 man was composed of matter consisting of innu- 
 merable centres of attraction and repulsion; it is 
 matter and matter only, though it be not bigger 
 than the point of a cambric needle, and is subject 
 to all the laws of matter. And admitting his 
 premises, he reasoned correctly. Being a 
 material thing, the soul must be under a con- 
 stitutional and physical necessity of action in 
 accordance with those general laws which gov- 
 ern matter in other forms. A question has been 
 asked, how it happened that the Socinians in 
 Boston first claimed me, and then opposed me. 
 Tiie answer is easy. They denounced me first 
 as a Calvinistic fatalist; but when some who 
 heard me thus denounced came to hear me under 
 that notion, they very quickly discovered their 
 mistake, and found that I preached free agency. 
 This information was carried back to those who 
 denounced me, and they replied ah? then he has 
 changed his opinions. But why, then, they were 
 asked, do you not like him? You tell us that 
 Calvinism is such a horrible thing, why then 
 don't you like this man, who opposes Calvinism 
 as we have understood it? What reason they 
 gave I cannot tell; but I can tell why some did 
 not like me. They were Priest I eyn'ns, and my 
 doctrine of free agency made their conscience 
 quake. I preached as I supposed the state of 
 things required. I found that with those around 
 
61 
 
 me, the bottom of accountability had fallen out; 
 and I labored to restore it to its place. But by 
 some who heard without understanding, I was 
 charged with being an Arminian. 1 am no 
 Armiiiian. 1 went among that people as a 
 spiritual phj-sician. I found a particular disease 
 rife around me, prevailing and destroying on 
 every side. What was I to do? Prescribe for 
 some other disease? They had been drugged 
 with natural inability, and they wanted an 
 alterative. I gave them one that made their ears 
 tingle, and their hearts bleed and ache — and 
 live. Had I preached natural inability to man 
 under such circum?ianccs, it would have been 
 like giving opium to a man in lethargy; so it is in 
 some parts of this city. Here is a disease which 
 needs just such an alterative. 
 
 The scriptures unequivocally teach, that God is not 
 tlie aullior of sin. He did not lay his plan with a 
 direct design to produce it. Neither does he admin- 
 ister his government vvitii a design to produce it. He 
 has not planned to bring sin into being, nor adopted 
 any terms to that end, in order that afterwards he 
 might bring a great amount of good out of it, and a 
 great deal more good than could ever, have existed 
 without it. I know very well there are some in the 
 land of all heresies, who do hold this. But we be- 
 lieve that He arrays his character, his law, his gospel, 
 his providtiicc and bis Spirit, all, against sin; and 
 that, as the scriplure declares, wickedness is from die 
 wicked, and not from God. Wickedness is a perver- 
 sion of free agency, in direct opposition to God's law 
 and blessed Spirit, and all the powerful influence of 
 God's righteous government. 
 
 There are but three ways in which God can be the 
 aullior of sin: eillier he must have made corrupt, 
 wicked matter, and put the mind into it as its habita- 
 tion; which is a heresy long since condemned and 
 stamped with lasling ignominy: or he must have crea- 
 ted sin in the substance of the mind; wliich was the 
 rnanichean heresy, and like the other, condemned cen- 
 turies ago. Bolli these detestable opinions were 
 exploded as soon as they appeared. They just stuck 
 their heads out to be crushed, and have never hissed 
 nguin. There is only one other way in which God 
 can make sin; and that is, by creating the sinful 
 volition;) of men. This is Dr. Emmons' idea. He 
 supposes that God cannot make a free agent, who 
 ciiii act by llie energy of communicated powers; that 
 it is impossible in the nature of things. Tliis, to be 
 sure is very respectful lo God. It declares, in sub- 
 stance, that he began to build and could not finish. 
 Ho was not able to make a free agent, who might act 
 right and wrong under a law. Dr. Emmons admitted 
 once in conversation with me, that God creates the 
 sinful volition of men. I inquired, how then is man 
 lo blame? Oh, said he, the blame does not lie in the 
 cause oC tiic volition, but in its qualities. Well, I 
 replied, supposing I admit this to be true; how can 
 (iod conimiiiid man lo put forth volitions, which he 
 does not civalc? IIow can those he does create be 
 iivo!(li'<l, and those he does not create be brought into 
 being? IIow can lie require men to have holy 
 volitions, while God works sinful volitions within them? 
 Dr. Emmons was a veiierablu man, and greatly my 
 superior in age, and as he made no reply, I ceased lo 
 press the inquiry. 
 
 If therolbre (licre be a natural necessity forde- 
 
 pravity, or if it is in the substance of the soul, 
 or if God being unable to make a free agent, 
 has to create all his agencies: just as he makes 
 rain and hail; then God is the author of evil. — 
 There is no scape but in the doctrine of free 
 agency. If God can make a free agent capa- 
 ble of acting right and wrong — accountable for 
 his choice, and dependent upon grace for his 
 recovery after once he has chosen wrong; then 
 sin may be in the universe and yet God not be 
 its author. In what other way Dr. Wilson can 
 account for the existence of sin, and not make 
 God its author, I am not able to perceive. 
 
 I have now gone through the scriptural argument 
 in support of my interpretation of the Confession of 
 Faith. T have been as concise as I could consistently 
 wilh the introdction of all the necessary points. On 
 the soundness of this argument, I rest. On this 
 ground I am willing to put myself into the hands of 
 this court and to abide its decision. I will do more. 
 I am prepared to seal it up unto the day of judgment, 
 and to abide it there. I am as conscientious in hold- 
 ing those opinions, as my brother Wilson can be in 
 rejecting and impugning them. God is the righteous 
 judge of us both; and to his dread tribunal, I am pre- 
 pared to make my appeal. 
 
 Upon motion, the Presbytery took a recess, till 
 Monday morning. 
 
 Monday Morning, June 16. — Dr. Beecher continu- 
 ed his defence as follows: 
 
 My second proposition is this, thiit die Confession 
 of Faith, and the Bible, and the voice of the whole 
 church from age to age, all teach the moral inability 
 of man to obey the Gospel, and his entire and univer- 
 sal ind absolute dependence upon the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit — lo begin, continue, and consummate the 
 work of conversion. I have not usually employed the 
 terms, natuial and moral inability, in my preaching; 
 because I thought it best to avoid those technical 
 terms, which ahvays gather around them many mis- 
 apprehensions. I bad rather take clean words to 
 express my meaning, than words which have been 
 made impure by long use and much controversy. But 
 in this case, I can't avoid the use of technical terms; 
 because it is on the meaning of technical phrases, 
 that the controversy turns. It is in respect to these 
 termsjhat the whole alarm which agitates the church 
 has been crated. The great thing required to tran- 
 quilize the church, and get those who liave been dis- 
 puting to come lo a right understanding of each 
 other's meaning, is lo explain our theological tech- 
 nics; to state with clearness, what they mean and 
 what they do not mean; by moral inability, I mean 
 the inability of mind, not of matter. We arc speak- 
 ing of moral government, not of physical; of free 
 agency, not of necessity. When I talk of moral in- 
 abiliiy I do nol deny that ability which consists in free 
 agency, and wh'ch is indispensable to moral govern- 
 ment, nor do I mean as I have been supposed to meat?, 
 when I siiy that the will is free from constraint or 
 defect, that the faculty of the will has not been shat- 
 tered, wounded, disturbed, and put out of order. I 
 do not mean that; and 1 admit that such a change 
 was produced in Adam's constitution by the fall, that 
 though he continued to act in a voluntary and ac- 
 countable manner, he acted wrong, and left to iiini- 
 self, would ever conlinuc to do so. The shock struck 
 his will out of its bnlanc", and it was followed by the 
 
63 
 
 same effect on all his posterity. The free agency of 
 fallen man all goes one way. The will is free, but it 
 is under a bias; and so fully set in the wrong way, 
 that nothing but the truth and Spirit of God can 
 ever bring it right again. What I say is that some- 
 thing has taken place in respec} to man, insomuch 
 that when life and death are set before him, although 
 he has ample power to choose life, he has no will 
 to choose it, but wills to refuse it. He lies under 
 that impolency of the will which consists in aversion 
 from God. With full power to return, he refuses to 
 return, he wraps his talent in a napldn; and when 
 pressed by the motives of the gospel, he pleads natu- 
 ral inability, when it is only the inability of unflinching 
 guilt. The inability of a will fully set against God 
 and duty. 
 
 I say in the first place, that this must be the mean- 
 ing of the Confession of Faith: for, according to a 
 rule which I laid down at the beginning, an instru- 
 ment is never so lo be interpreted, as to make it con- 
 tradict itself, without necessity; when it is just as 
 easy to harmonize all its parts, by adopting a different 
 interpretation. Now if I have not proved that the 
 confession, as I interpret it, is sustained by other col- 
 lateral arguments in addition to that which I have 
 drawn from the Bible, then I shall despair of ever suc- 
 cessfully expounding a document in the world. I 
 never have seen so much light thrown on any one 
 point of exposition before. The confession does 
 speak of an inability other than a natural one; and 
 you are not at liberty to make it in one place deny 
 an ability, which it has asserted in another. And 
 when it declares that 1 am unable to do my duty, it 
 cannot mean to contradict what it had before assert- 
 ed, with respect to my being able. I may be able in 
 one sense, and unable in another. The confession, 
 in fact, interprets itself (And this, I suppose, is what 
 Dr. Wilson means, when he says, we must receive the 
 language of the Confession witl.out any explanation.) 
 I agree with him, that on many points it needs no ex- 
 planation. It guards against its own perversion, and 
 its language is such as I should think it almost im- 
 possible to misunderstand. 
 
 Let us see what is the language which it holds in 
 chap. 6, sec. 4. 
 
 From this original corruption, whereby we are ut- 
 terly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all 
 good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all 
 actual transgressions. 
 
 Here is active aversion, not fatal necessity. The 
 man is indisposed , he is disabled by being indisposed. 
 But it has been said, that if a man needs help, it 
 must be a natural inability under which he lies. This 
 I deny. A man who lies under a moral inability needs 
 aid as much, if not more; and the aid he needs is 
 such as God alone can bring him. What Christian 
 does not pray that God would help him? But does 
 he mean that he has no strength of any sort? Not 
 at all. He is afraid to trust his own heart. He prays 
 for moral aid, for moral ability, for strength of pur- 
 pose. Surely ^ve are all agreed in this. There can 
 be no need that my brother and myself should be at 
 odds. We believe alike — for we pray alike. New 
 school and old school all confess, when they get be- 
 fore God, that their powers are perverted, and with- 
 out his help they can do nothing. I have put off my 
 coat, how shall I put it on? We also feel the same 
 impotency; and what we feel, God sees; and that 
 which he sees he hns testified. O that his ciiildren 
 
 woul.l leave off their controversies. O that they 
 might see eye to eye. How would Zion arise, if her 
 standard-bearers could see truth alike; if they all 
 spoke the same thing and were perfectly agreed in. 
 the same judgment. Then would one chase a thou- 
 sand, and two put ten thousand to flight. 
 
 Then comes the chapter on free will. 
 
 Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hatlj. wholly 
 lost, all ability of will to any spiritual good aocom- 
 panying salvation ; so as a natural man, being alto- 
 gether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not- 
 able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to» 
 prepare himself thereunto. 
 
 When it says that man has lost all ability of will; 
 it does not mean that he has lost all free agency. It 
 does not mean, that he is not able, as a free agent, 
 and bound to do that which is right, but that he has 
 lost all will to do it. My sou! ! do I not believe this? 
 Did I not feel it when God convinced me of sin? Full 
 well did I feel it. Did I not fall at the footstool and 
 tell the Lord that I was gone, that 1 was ruined and 
 helpless and never should come back to him, unless 
 he put forth his hand to deliver me. If I ever preached 
 any truth to dying men, with all my heart and with 
 all my soul, it is the truth of man's total depravity 
 and inability; that his condition is desperate and 
 never would he turn and live, unless God should 
 look down from heaven and have mercy upon him. — 
 This is my doctrine; and it is the doctrine of the 
 Confession, which says, we are averse from all good. 
 This language suits me; it suits Dr. Wilson; why 
 then should we keep asunder? There is no catch in 
 this, no quibble; I mean what I say, I fully and hearti- 
 ly believe that man is utterly averse to all good; that 
 he is dead; dead in law and dead in sin — under~the 
 curse of God, and so must ever remain, until God 
 quickens him by his spirit and grace. 
 
 But let us see what the Confession says in sect. 4, 
 chap. 9. 
 
 When God converts a sinner, and translates him 
 into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural 
 bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him 
 freely to will and do that which isspiritually good ; 
 yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, 
 he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, 
 but doth also will that which is evil. 
 
 'Enable' here does not imply that there is any 
 natural inability. Grace enables us to will freely. — 
 The Confession holds no Perfectionism. It is ortho- 
 dox; it says that no mere man is able, without divine 
 aid, to keep God's commandments. That is my faith. 
 I admit, however, that' tiiis was the spot at which I 
 once stumbled, when, as I said, I was unabli fully to 
 embrace the Confession of faith. I saw a dilBculty 
 here. I believed the confession to mean just as Dr. 
 Wilson still believes it to mean; and in that sense I 
 never could receive it. But on reflection, and with 
 those collateral lights which I have mentioned, I now 
 understand it to speak the very truth, and I embrace it 
 accordingly. 1 believe in the moral inability which it 
 here declares; and I believe that moral inability will 
 continue until the christian reaches his home in 
 heaven. 
 
 But now let us hear what the Confession says upon 
 effectual calling. I quote from chap, x, sec. 1. 
 
 All those whom God bath predestinated unto life, 
 and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and ac- 
 cepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit, 
 out of that state of sin and death in which they are 
 by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus ChriBt; en^ 
 
63 
 
 lightening their minds spiritually and savingly to un- 
 derstand the things of God; taking away their heart 
 of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; re- 
 newing their wills, and hy his almighty power deter- 
 mining them to that which is good; and effectually 
 drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come 
 most freely being made willing by his grace. 
 
 Tiiia enlightening I iiold to be a divine illumina- 
 tion, and such as the Sjiirit of God alone can give. 
 Theplirase'heartof stone,' which is employed in one 
 of the lexis cited as proof, is a metaphor; and so is 
 the heart of flesh; and this I believe is the only pass- 
 age in the whole Bible where the term 'flesh' is em- 
 ployed to signify anything good. A heart of flesh 
 manifestly means tenderness, susceptibility — in other 
 words a willing heart. Renewing the 'will,' that is 
 turning the will into a new direction. It is God who 
 turns it. The sinner left to himself never will turn. 
 But in conversion God does not make a free agent. 
 He turns a free agent. I am perfectly aware that some 
 very good men suppose and assert that the men of 
 the new school (though that, by-the-by, is one of the 
 most undefined of all d^'signations; the term is like 
 fog, it has no substance and no definite limits, but 
 floats about in a sort of palpable obscure) hold to self- 
 regeneration; and that the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit is not necessary in turning a sinner from dark- 
 ness to light. No man ever heard me teach such a 
 doctrine. I have taught directly tho reverse, and 
 have put the doctrine of man's absolute dependence 
 into as strong terms as I knew how to employ. If 
 there are any stronger, I shall be glad to get hold of 
 them. All who are in the habit of hearing me, know 
 perfectly that the total depravily of man and his 
 dependence on the power and help of the Spirit of 
 God has been the great end of all my preaching; and 
 I as well know, lint it has been the power of all my 
 preaching. I think, and always have thought, that the 
 display of divine Omnipotence in converting rebel 
 minds is greater by far than any exhibition of it, which 
 ever has been mado in the material world. And for 
 an obvious reason; because mind has more power of 
 resislanc;; than matter. Some men seem to think 
 that jf God does a thing by instrumentality, no oppor- 
 tunity is left for him to show his own great power. I 
 think far otherwise. To me the truth seems weak 
 enough in itself to leave ample space for the display 
 of omnipotence. I think thai the act of God in re- 
 generation is the most stupendous manifestation of 
 omnipoteni energy that has ever been made by the 
 Ahni'^'hly. Nor do I ever expect to see anytlimg in 
 God's works that will rival the solemn majesty of that 
 greatest of all his operations, which, silent as the 
 music of the spheres, moves on in its resistless 
 sircngth, making the hearts of rebel men to yield 
 before it. What then isgrace? It is God's use 
 of his own truth. But though truth is the instrument, 
 the grace that uses it is none the less grace on that 
 accouul. And now, I think, 1 can ckarly understand 
 how it is that my brulher has become jealous of inc, 
 and has thought me a heretic. Looking at this doc- 
 trint' in all lis important bearings, and in all its glory 
 and beauty, he iias said to himself: 'Beecher does 
 not hold that. He does not believe a word of it.' 
 But Bi:ccher does hold that, and does believe every 
 word of it. He holds it in his head, and he cherishes 
 it in iiis heart. I believe original sin, just as Dr. Wil- 
 son believes it: and I shall bring Dr. Wilson himself 
 to support ins. 
 
 And now let us return agaia to the synod of 
 Dort. 
 
 All men are conceived in sin, and by nature chil- 
 dren of wralh, incapable of any saving good, prone tj 
 evil, dead in sin and in bondage thereto; and without 
 the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit they are 
 neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the 
 depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to 
 reformation. 
 
 'Dead in sins' is a very different thing from 
 being dead in constitutional powers. A mun 
 cannot sin without having a constitutional agen- 
 cy. A man must be able to act, before he can 
 act wrong. He must be able to choose before he 
 can choose wrong. 
 
 And this is the doctrine which is ascribed to 
 us as self-regeneration. We hold that a sinner 
 is regenerated by the Spirit of God; and that 
 the Spirit does not act at an uncertainty; and al- 
 though grace be not irresistible, in any compul- 
 sory sense, yet in the hand of God the result is 
 sure. And though the operation is moral and 
 not physical, God can make it as effectual and 
 as certain as any effect in his government of the 
 natural world. We are not pelagians. We do 
 not hold the pelagian notion of free will and 
 moral suasion without any special grace. Far 
 from it. We hold that where God wills to act, 
 all goes forward; nothing holds back. When he 
 commands the light to shine out of darkness, 
 then the blind see, and when he speaks the word 
 of power, the dead arise. Every rebel, great or 
 small, under God's effectual calling, submits to 
 God and submits freely. K this is not the doc- 
 trine of the Confe<sioii of Faith, and the doctrine 
 of the Bible, then my hope is vain and my faith 
 is vain. 
 
 [Presbytery here took a recess till the after- 
 noon. When it again met, Dr. Beecher resum- 
 ed his defence and observed:] 
 
 The next point in the confirmation of my ex- 
 position of the doctrine of the Confession, touch- 
 ing the moral impotence of man, is to show, that 
 what it affirms on that subject has been the doc- 
 trine o( the church of God in all ages. And I 
 shall now show that the fathers, while they held 
 free will in opposition to necessity and blind 
 flic, nevertheless taught the moral inability of 
 man, and his dependence on the Holy Spirit, 
 just as I teach it. And the first authority I shall 
 produce on this point is that of Clement of Al- 
 exandria. 
 
 Since some men are without faith and others con- 
 tenlious, all do not obtain the perfection of good. — 
 Nor is it possible to obtain it without our own exertion. 
 Tile whole, however, does not depend upon our own 
 will; for instance — our future destinv; for we are sav- 
 ed by grace not indeed without good works. But 
 those who are naturally disposed to good must apply 
 some attention toil. Scott's Tomline. vol.2, p. 50. 
 
 Clement next proceeds to take up the other 
 side; but he has got both sides: he holds man*^s 
 natural ability and his moral inability with equal 
 clearness. 
 
G4 
 
 Now let us hear Origen. 
 
 The virtue of a rational creature is mixed, arising 
 from Iiis own free will, and the divine power conspir- 
 ing with him who chooses that which is good. But 
 there is need of our own free will, and of divine coop- 
 eration which dues not depend upon our will, not only 
 to become good and virtuous, but also after we become 
 so, that we may persevere in virtue : since even a per- 
 son who is made perfect will fall away, if he be elated 
 by his virtue, and ascribe the whole to himself, not re- 
 ferring the due glory to Him who contributes by far 
 the greater share, both in the acquisition of virtue, and 
 in the perseverance in it. p. 82. 
 
 I quoted him before, and shovred that he was 
 strong on the doctrine of free virill, as opposed to 
 fate. What I have now quoted may be consid- 
 ered as a good commentary upon the text: It is 
 God that worketh in you both to will and to do 
 of his good pleasure. 
 
 Next we will hear Gregory Nazianzen. 
 When you hear 'Those to whom it is given,' add, 'It 
 is given to those who are called, and who are so dis- 
 posed. For when you hear, it is not of him that will- 
 eth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth 
 mercy,' I advise you to suppose the same thing. For 
 because there are some so proud of their virtue, as to 
 attribute every thing to themselves, and nothing to 
 Him who made them, and gave them wisdom, and is 
 the Author of good, this expression teaches them that 
 a right will stands in need of assistance from God; or 
 rather the very desire of what is right is something 
 divine and the gift of the mercy of God. For we 
 have need both of power over ourselves and of salva- 
 tion from God. Therefore, says he, it is not of him 
 that willeth, that is, not of him only that willetb, nor 
 of him only that runnetli, but of God that showeth. — 
 Since the will itself is from God, he with reason attri- 
 butes every thing to God. However much you run, 
 however much you contend, you stand in need of him 
 who gives the crown. Except the Lord build the 
 house, their labor is but lost that build it: except the 
 Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 
 I know, says he, that the race is not to the swift nor 
 the battle to the strong; nor is the victory to those 
 who fight, nor the harbor to those who sail well ; but it 
 is of God both to work the victory and to preserve the 
 vessel into port. 
 
 Gregory says that God is the author of faith, 
 that he is the beginner of good in the soul; yet 
 he is equally explicit on the doctrine of free will 
 as opposed to fatalism. He holds that man has 
 need of all that free agency can do, and all that 
 grace performs beside. 
 
 Apd now we see there were good men who 
 knew something before we were born; and here 
 let me say that there is but one thing which I 
 have advanced that I want to take back. I am 
 now convinced that I did not give sufficient 
 credit to those who lived before the times of Ed- 
 wards for clearness of discrimination on this sub- 
 ject. If what-I said in that respect was a slan- 
 der on the church, I here take it back. The 
 fathers did speak more clearly on the distinction 
 between natural and moral ability than I had 
 supposed they did, before I had so particularly 
 examined the ground. It is true, however, that 
 
 though many of them saw with perspicuity the 
 nature and truth of the distinction, yet the truth 
 on that subject was not reduced to that systemat- 
 ic clearness which it has assumed since their 
 day. 
 
 I will now quote Jerome. 
 
 Through our own will we do not receive the word 
 of God, and therefore it becomes a reproach to us, that 
 what was given us for salvation, through our own fault 
 is converted into punishment, p. 45. ' 
 
 This father declares that although man is 
 bound to work out his own salvation with fear 
 and trembling, yet that he is not able to do it un- 
 less God should work in him. Is not this right? 
 He says that grace is so needful that no eiffort of 
 reason or conscience will ever effect the work, 
 which it alone is able to perform. Is a man 
 to sit down, like a lump of lead, in the hands of 
 God. Is he to be moved and lifted as a block 
 of stone. No: he must strive, and yet, if he 
 strives ever so much, he will accomplish nothing 
 savingly unless God draws him. By the energy 
 of our free will we refuse to receive the word of 
 God, and so the very opportunity that was put 
 in our hand, justly becomes our punishment. Let 
 us hear Jerome again: 
 
 This we say, not that God is ignorant tliat a nation 
 or k'ngdom will do this, or that; but that he leaves 
 man to his own will, tliat he may receive either re- 
 wards or punishments, according to his own will and 
 his own merit. Nor does it follow that the whole of 
 what will happen will be of man, but of his grace, who 
 has given all things. For the freedom of the will is 
 so to be reserved, that the grace of the Giver may ex- 
 cel in all things, according to the saying of the proph- 
 et, except the Lord build the house, their labor is but 
 lost that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the 
 watchman waketh but in vain. It is not of him that 
 willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God thatshow- 
 eth mercy, p. 146. 
 
 Though man is a free agent, yet regeneration 
 is not the effect of his agency, but of God's free 
 grace: as the preservation of a city is not the 
 result of the watchman's care, but of God's 
 own unsleeping providence. Unless the Lord 
 keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 
 
 Again : 
 
 But because no one is saved without his own will, 
 (for we have free will,) he wills us to will that which 
 is good, that, when we have willed it, he himself also 
 may will to fulfil his own counsel in us. p. 163. 
 
 And now let us listen* again to Augustine: 
 
 If he (Pelagius) will agree that the will itself,and 
 the action, are assisted by God, and so assisted tliat 
 we cannot will or do anything well without that assis- 
 tance, no controversy will be left between us, as fat 
 as I can judge, concerning the assistance of the grace 
 of God. p. 221. 
 
 I referred to this father, as being the strong- 
 est and most explicit of all the fathers on the 
 doctrine of man's natural ability. He every- 
 where holds that, as a free agent, man is able 
 to answer the requirements of God; that God 
 has given him a capacity which sin has not 
 taken away. But then he talks of inability; 
 
65 
 
 yet not such an iniibility as is in opposition 
 and contradiction to the one he had before as- 
 serted; but that which is moral only. Would 
 men have ui to believe that Augustine was a 
 Pelagian, when it was he who stood in the 
 breach against that flood of error, which Pel- 
 agius sought to bring in, and, but for him, would 
 have brought in upon the whole church, deny- 
 ing the fall and all its effects in biasing the 
 human will? It will not be pretended that the 
 writings of Augustine smell of heresy. When 
 he is proved to be a Pelagian, then I will ad- 
 mit myself to be one: but never till then. — 
 Augustine taught that there was such an im- 
 potency in the human will, as that man 'can- 
 not' convert himself, or prepare himself for 
 conversion; because there is such a bias on 
 his will, derived from Adam's sin, as must for- 
 ever prevent it. Docs Dr. Wilson agree to this? 
 I know he does. Dr. Wilson believes free 
 will. I believe free will. Dr. Wilson believes 
 in man's moral inability. And so do I. And 
 now will Dr. Wilson shake hands with me. — 
 Augustine would have shaken hands with Pela- 
 gius, if Pclagius would only have admitted what 
 I admit. And what then is there to keep us 
 apart? But we shall see more of this, when we 
 come to the doctrine of original sin. 
 
 Now let us hear Theodoret: 
 
 Neillier the grace of tlio Spirit is sufficient for those 
 who hnve not willingness; nor, on the other hand, can 
 willingness, without this grace, collect the riches of 
 virtue, p. 29(1. 
 
 Hero we see that while the grace of the S[)irit does 
 not supersede the necessity of earnest attention and 
 striving on the part of man, yet that no strivings of 
 man will ever issue in a saving resull, witiiout Al- 
 mighty grace. And grace is not to be expected while 
 a man wilfully indulges in slolii and sleep, and puts 
 forth no effort for his own deliverance. 
 
 I will now invite the attention of Presbytery to the 
 Harmony of Confessions. The doctrines of the early 
 reformers in Europe were misunderstood by the Cath- 
 olics, against whom they contended, who maintained 
 that they were alia set of scliismatics; tliat ihey were 
 perpetually jangling among each other, so that no two 
 of them could agree; and on this alleged fact, they 
 strengthened liie great argument of their church as 
 to the necessity of having some head on earth to the 
 vi.3iblo church, whose decisions might settle contro- 
 versies and give uniformity to the faith. To meet 
 this argument and repel it, the reformers got up this 
 book, which is entitled the Ilurmony of the Confes- 
 sions: the design of which was to show, by collating 
 the confessions of different evangelical chuiciies, that 
 the representation of their enemies was false; and 
 that, in all fundamental points of faith, they were ful- 
 ly agreed. 
 
 From lliis book, I am about to show what the Pro- 
 testant churches, just come out of the fiery furnace 
 of Papal persecution, held on the subject of the 7noral 
 inability of man. I have already shown what was the 
 opinion of the fathers. I shall now show that of the 
 reformers. And I begin with the Confession of Hel- 
 vetia: 
 
 And we take sin to be that natural corruption of 
 man, derived or spread from thoie our first parents un- 
 
 9 
 
 to us all, through which we being drovinedin. evil con- 
 cupiscences, and clean turned away from God, but 
 prone to all evil, fo^l^^ all wickedness, distrust, con- 
 tempt, and hatred of Ghd, can do no good ofourselves, 
 no not so much as think OC any. p. 58. 
 
 Here we see that man'sAnability does not consist 
 in any want of understanding or conscience, or any 
 other attribute or power of a perfect free agent; but 
 that it is the effect of that which ia moral ; that it arises 
 from the evil concupiscene of a corrupt nature, the 
 wilful unbelief of a wicked heart. Men cannot do 
 what is good. Why? Because they have a moral in- 
 ability to do it. Who can bring a clean thing out of an 
 unclean? Again: 
 
 We are to consider, what man was after his fall. — 
 His understanding indeed was not taken from him, 
 neither was he deprived of will, and altogether cbtng- 
 ed into a stone or stock. Xevcrtheless, these things 
 are so altered in man, that they are not afcZe to do 
 that now, which they could not do before his fall. For 
 his understanding is darkened, and his will, which be- 
 fore was free, is now become a servile will: for it 
 serveth sin, not nilling, but willing: for it is called a 
 will, and not a nilling. Therefore, as touching evil 
 or sin, man does evil, not compelled either by God or 
 the Devil, but of his own accord; and in this respect ha 
 hath a most free will. p. 60. 
 
 Ti;e fall is here said not to have deprived man of 
 free agency; not to have turned him into a stock or a 
 stone; but that his free agency is not able to do for 
 him now that which it could not do fur him before the 
 fall. His powers as a free agent did not keep him 
 from falling, much less can they recover him being 
 fallen. Again let us listen to the same confession: 
 
 Now it is evident, that the mind or understanding is 
 the guide of the will: and seeing the guide is blind, 
 it is easy to be seen how far the will can reach. — 
 Therefore man not as yet regenerate hath no free will 
 to good, no strength, to perform that which is good. — 
 p. 61. 
 
 the regenerate, in the choice and working of 
 
 that which is good, do not only work passively, but 
 actively. For they are moved of God, that them- 
 selves may do that which they do. And Au^stine 
 doth truly allege that saying, that God is said to be 
 our helper. For no man can be helped, but he, thai 
 doth somewhat. The -Manichees did bereave man of 
 all action, and made him like a stone and a block. — 
 p. 62. 
 
 Here we find that no man is helped of grace until 
 he docs something to help himself. A piece of lead 
 cannot be helped to rise. It mny be lifted. But it 
 cannot be helped. And for the simple reason, that it 
 has no agency of its own to be helped. 
 
 Now let us turn to the confession of the Waldenses 
 — (a good name.) 
 
 Wherefore the spring and principal author of all 
 evil is that c.-uel and detestable devil, the tempter, 
 liar, and manslayer: and next the free will of man, 
 which notwithstanding being converted to evil, 
 through lust and naughty desires and by perverse con- 
 cupiscence, chooseth that which is evil. p. 65. 
 
 Here we find moral inability again as the conse- 
 quence of the fall; and the efficiency of temptation in 
 leading fallen men into evil: which efficiency does 
 and must continue until God by his Spirit comes to 
 the help of the sinner justly condemned, because he 
 is in possession of a natural ability which he will not 
 e.xert in obeying God. 
 
 I refer next to the French Confession: 
 
 Also, although he be endued with will, whereby he 
 
66 
 
 is moved to this or that, yet insomuch as that is alto- 
 gether captivated under sin, it hath no liberty at all 
 to desire good, but such as it Iiath received by grace 
 and of the gift of God. We believe that all the off- 
 spring of .^(/om. is infected with this contagion, M?hich 
 we call original sin, that is, a stain spreading itself 
 by propagation, and not by imitation only, as the 
 Pelagians thought, all whose errors we do detest. — 
 Neither do we think it necessary to search, how this 
 sin may be derived from one unto another. For it is 
 sufficient that tAose things which God gave unto 
 Adam, were poi given to him alone, but also to all 
 his posterit/-' '^"d therefore we in his person being 
 deprived of a" those good gifts, are fallen into all this 
 misery and curse, pp. 68, 69. 
 
 Let'' be remembered that the question in dispute 
 was ""' whether the will of man is free as opposed 
 toil fatal necessity; which all the fathers and the re- 
 ^rmers insist upon; but whether it was fr^e from any 
 bias by the fall. And what saith this Confession of 
 Belgia; 
 
 Therefore whatever things are taught, as touching 
 man's free will, we do worthily reject them, seeing 
 that man is the servant of sin, neither can he do any 
 thing of himself, but as it is given him from heaven: 
 For who is so bold as to brag that he is able to per- 
 form whatever he listeth, when as Christ himself 
 saith, 710 man can come unto me, except my Father, 
 which hath sent me, do draw him? Who dare boast 
 of his will, which beareth, that All tlie affections of 
 thefleshare enemies against God? Who will vaunt 
 of his understanding, which knoweth, that The natu- 
 ral man cannot perceive the things of the Spirit of 
 Godi To conclude, who is he that dare bring forth 
 any one cogitation of his own, which undorstandeth 
 this, that we are not Able of ourselves to think any 
 thing, but That we are sufficient, it is altogether of 
 Godi Therefore that saying of the Apostle must 
 needs remain firm and steadfast, it is God which work- 
 eth in us both to will, and to do, even of his good 
 pleasu-re. For no man's mind, no man's will, is able 
 to rest in the will of God, wherein Christ himself 
 hath wrought nothing before. The which also he 
 ■doth teach us, saying. Without me ye can do nothing 
 p. 70. 
 
 The Augsburg Confession gives concurrent testi- 
 mony ; 
 
 And this corruption of man's nature comprehendeth 
 both the defect of original justice, integrity, or obedi- 
 ence, and also concupiscence. This defect is horri- 
 ble blindness, and disobedience, that is, to wit, to want 
 that light and knowledge of God, which should have 
 been in our nature being perfect, and to want that up- 
 rightness, that is, that perpetual obedience, that true, 
 pure, and chief love of God, and those other gifts of 
 perfect nature. Wherefore those defects and this 
 concupiscence are things damnable, and of their own 
 nature worthy of death. And this original blot is 
 sin indeed, condemning, and bringing eternal death, 
 even now also, upon them, which are not born again 
 by baptism and the Holy Ghost, p. 71. 
 
 And what says Augustine? 
 
 We confess that there is in all men a free will, 
 which hath indeed the judgment of reason, not that 
 it is thereby apt without God either to begin, or to 
 perform anything, in matters pertaining to God, but 
 only in works belonging to this present life, whether 
 they be good, or evil. p. 72. 
 
 I shall close with Augustine and Ambrose: 
 
 Augustine saith. The Lord, that he might answer 
 Pelagius to come, doth not say, without me ye can 
 hardly do anything, but he saith, without me ye can 
 do nothing; And that he might also answer these 
 men that were to eome, in the very same sentence of 
 
 the Gospel, he doth not say, without me ye cannot 
 profit, but without me ye cannot do anything. For 
 if he had said, ye cannot profit, then these men might 
 say, we have need of the help of God, not to begin to 
 do good, for we have that of ourselves, but to profit 
 it. And a little after. The preparation of the heart 
 is in man, but the answer of the tongue is of the Lord. 
 Men not well understanding this, are deceived, think- 
 ing that it appertaineth to man to prepare the heart, 
 that is, to begin any good thing without the help of 
 the grace of God. But far be it from the children of 
 promise so to understand it, as when they heard the 
 Lord saying, without me ye can do nothing, they 
 should as it were reprove him, and say. Behold, with- 
 out thee we are able to prepare our hearts: or when 
 they hear Paul the Apostle saying, INot that we are 
 fit to think anything, as of ourselves, they should al- 
 so reprove him and say. Behold, we are fit of our- 
 selves, to prepare our hearts, and so consequently to 
 think some good thing. And again, Let no man de- 
 ceive himself: it is of his own, that he is Satan, it 
 is of God, that he is happy. For what is that, of 
 his own, but of his sin? take away sin, which is thy 
 own, and righteousness, saith he, is of me. For 
 what hast thou that thou hast not received 1 Am- 
 brose saith. Although it be in man, to will that 
 which is evil, yet he hath not power, to will that 
 which is good, except it be given him. Bernard 
 saith. If human nature, when it was perfect, could 
 not stand, how much less is it able of itself to rise up 
 again, being now corrupt 1 p. 77. 
 
 I have now finished this head, namely, the natural 
 ability of man, as the only just foundation for the mo- 
 ral government of God, and have endeavored to 
 show, that the doctrine is taught in our Confession, 
 and in the word of God; that it was held by the 
 fathers, and no less strongly by the reformers; and 
 that man's moral inability is taught with equal clear- 
 ness and by the same authorities. All these witness- 
 es of !he truth hold to the freedom of the will as op- 
 posed to coercion or necessity, but deny its right in- 
 clination; and thus, while they justify God's require- 
 ments, they throw the sinner at the feet of sovereign 
 grace. There he lies dead, hopelessly dead, not in 
 body, not in natural power; but dead in sins, dead 
 morally, dead in hatred to God, dead in unbelief, 
 dead in wilful and obstinate disobedience. And this 
 distinction, once rightly apprehended and firmly fixed 
 in the mind, is equal to twenty hundred candles light- 
 ed up and carried through the whole Bible. 
 
 After recess Dr. Beechcr resumed: 
 What I have already said, together with the 
 quotations which I have given, from the father's 
 of the Reformation and from the Harmony of 
 Confessions, comprises my understandings of the 
 doctrine o{ in^n''s moral inability. And wheri I 
 have given my opinion as to the effects of the fall 
 on mankind, you will have my entire view on the 
 subject of original sin. And, if there be any 
 place in the entire system of theology where 
 confusion has been worse confounded, it is where 
 men have undertaken to speak of what is the 
 state of the human mind before it arrives at the 
 point of responsible thought and volition. Nor 
 is this wonderful; because here we enter into a 
 dark cavern where we have no candle to light us, 
 no guide to lead us, and no witness to declare to 
 us what is there. For this reason, whenever I 
 have attempted to speak on the subject at all, I 
 have always kept close to the Bible, and have 
 
€7 
 
 never attempted (o theorize. I hold all theoriz- 
 ing on thissubject to be vain, because the entire 
 philosophy of the infant mind prior to the period 
 of ove:t action is covered up from us by a veil of 
 impenetrable obscurity; except so far as that 
 veil is drawn aside by the Bible. What is pre- 
 cisely intended in the charge which has been 
 ■brought against me on the subject of original 
 sin, 1 do not exactly know. But from the°evi- 
 dence which has been relied on, it would seem 
 that I am charged with holding the Pelagian 
 doctrine that the posterity of Adam are not af- 
 fected by his fall, and are born without any bias 
 to evil; and that infants when born, are as pure 
 as the angels before God's throne. If this is the 
 charge, I observe that the proof is irrelevant. — 
 Dr. Wilson refers, in support of his charge, to 
 my sermon on the Native Character ofMan. In 
 respect to which sermon, I utterly deny that it 
 teaches any such doctrine. As to the true in- 
 tent and meaning of that discourse, it will be 
 better understood, when I have related to the 
 presbytery a history of the circumstances in 
 which it was written. There was in my con- 
 gregation at the time, an individual of high 
 standing in society who possessed much sagacity 
 and acute discrimination and great power of ar- 
 gument, who became exceedingly restive under 
 my preaching of the doctrine of Total Depnivitv, 
 especially when I undertook to reject and cast 
 away, as moral excellencies, all those good qual- 
 ities and kindly sympathies which are found in 
 unregenerate men; such as parental and conju- 
 gal afToction, love and friendship, pity for ihe 
 poor and distressed; and so uneasy did he at 
 length become that he began to write on these 
 subjects and to broach his opinions in conversa- 
 tion, among young men of high cultivation; en- 
 deavoring to form a party and make head against 
 me, so as to resist the impression of my labors in 
 the cause of truth. Perceiving this, I found it 
 was time forme to move, unless I would permit 
 the truth to be undermined. With an especial 
 view to meet and to refute the notions which this 
 individual was endeavoring to propagate, I con- 
 structed the sermon which is now urged as a 
 witness against me on the subject of original sin. 
 I began with the assumption that unconverted 
 men have no true religion. This I nssumed, be- 
 cause this was a point which he conceded; and 
 helving, as I believed, invincibly established it, I 
 then proceeded to draw from these premises in- 
 ferences which cut up his system root and branch; 
 showing that there was in us by nature no good 
 thing, and that our will tended to evil and only 
 evil, and that continually. Under God's blessing 
 this settled the matter; and then, at the request 
 of many, I consented that my sermon should go 
 to the press. The whole discourse has respect 
 to adult man and to adult man only. Every in- 
 ference it contains, and every proposition it lays 
 down, were intended to apply to men in their 
 adult state of free agency-. What I say on this 
 
 subject is contained in the first inference, and la 
 such language as the following: 
 
 'Neither a holy nor a depraved nature are possible, 
 wiiliout understanding, conscience and choice.' 'Abil- 
 ity to obey is indispensable to moral obligation. A 
 depraved nature can no more exist without voluntary 
 agtncy and accountability than a material nature can 
 exist without solidity and extension. Whatever effect, 
 therefore, the fall of man may have had on his race, it 
 has not had the effect to render it impossible for man 
 to love God religiously; and whatever may be the 
 early constitution of man, there is nothing in it and 
 nothing withheld from it which renders disobedience 
 [actual] unavoidable, and obedience [actual] impossi- 
 ble.' 
 
 What the precise effect of Adam's sin was I do 
 not say; and how can I be convicted for deliver- 
 ing false doctrines on a topic which I express- 
 ly refused to discuss, or so much as to touch? I 
 protest against this sermon being received as tes- 
 timony, because it is wholly irrelevant. But 
 further, if anything had been said in the sermon 
 in respect to original sin, which in its language 
 would not bear the test of rigid scrutiny, when 
 it is rempmbercd that my eye was fixed, and 
 all my faculties put in requisition to refute a 
 dangerous error without reference to original sin, 
 no candid court of Christ would hold me guilty; 
 as if I had expressly undertaken to discuss the 
 doctrine and had vented dangerous errors in re- 
 gard to it. The sermon was written, I believe, 
 ten years previous to the controversies which 
 now agitate the church; it had not the remot- 
 est reference to them; and surely it is not to 
 be brought up at this day, to convict me of 
 holding this or that opinion, on a subject which 
 I was not then discussing, but which I have since 
 discussed, and with respect to which my opin- 
 ions are avowed and known. The presbytery 
 certainly has a right to get the clearest light 
 they can obtain, but they are to judge by the 
 testimony, and this testimony is, I insist, irrele- 
 vant. It is no evidence what my opinions are, 
 when 1 have spoken directly and professedly, as 
 I have since done, on the doctrine of original 
 sin? Proof of this latter declaration of opinion 
 is abundant, but that has not been adduced by Dr. 
 Wilson, and is now out of court. And the very 
 passage, and the only passnge in the whole 
 sermon, which can, by possibility, be twisted in- 
 to evidence against me, so far from denying o- 
 riginnl sin does by implication assume it. It ad- 
 mits that there was a connection between Adam 
 and his posterity; owing to which they became 
 affected by his sin, (which position the Pelagians 
 deny;) and it merely denies with our Confes- 
 sion, that there is anything in that connection 
 which renders sin a matter of fatality. The 
 statement of what I hold in respect to the doc- 
 trine of original sin, may be found in my corres- 
 pondence with Dr. Wood, from which give me 
 leave to read an extract: 
 
 'In consequence of the sin of Adam, all his posteri- 
 
68 
 
 ly, from ilie commencement of their moral existence, 
 are destitute of liolinessand prone to evil? so that the 
 atoning death of Christ, and the special, renovating 
 influence of the Spirit are indispensable to the salva- 
 tion of any human being.' 
 
 The question put by myself to George Beech- 
 cr, with his answers, in Dr. Wilson's presence, 
 wore entirely satisfactory to me. And what 
 views do they contain? The presbytery cannot 
 have forgotten thenn, but let me refresh the mem- 
 ory of the court: [This examination is mislaid or 
 lost.— JErfs. 06*. 
 
 And here I might stop, for I am under no ob- 
 ligation tovoluntcer statements of my opinions, 
 in respect to the subjects on which lam to be 
 tried. My errors are to be shown by evidence; 
 and I say that, in this case, the evidence has ut- 
 terly failed; and I might, therefore, repel the 
 charge of heresy,as not established. But I have 
 no secrets on this subject, or as to any of the re- 
 ligious opinions which I hold. At my time of 
 life, and especially under the circumstances in 
 which I am placed, both as pastor of a flock, and 
 is an instrueter of the rising ministry of the 
 church, I have no right to any secret opinions. 
 I scorn concealment, and therefore I will declare 
 with all openness, the things which I do believe. 
 The presbytery shall not sMs^pci me of being a 
 heretic. If I am aheretic, they shall know it. — 
 You shall have in respect to my views of original 
 sin, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
 the truth. 
 
 1. As to the federal or representative charac- 
 ter of Adam, and the covenant with him and his 
 posterity. I have through my whole public life, 
 believed and taught that the constitution and 
 character of his entire posterity, as perverted or 
 unperverted, depended on his obedience or de- 
 fection; and that he was in this respect, and 
 by God's appointment, constitutionally the cove- 
 nant head and representative of his race. And 
 that, in this view, all mankind descending from 
 him, by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and 
 fell with him in his first transgression; that is 
 their character and destiny were decided by his 
 deed. 
 
 For a more ample expression of my views, I 
 submit the remarks of Dr. Bishop, Pr:!sident of 
 the Miami University on the subject of Social 
 Liabilities, the best name that ever was devised 
 for the idea. A name which, I hope, we shall 
 all remember and fix in our minds, as it is calcu- 
 lated to avoid much error which has arisen from 
 the use of other phraseology. In respect to the 
 book from which I am about to quote, I heartily 
 thank that great and good man, for having con- 
 densed so much truth into so small a compass; 
 and I do believe that the simple substitution of 
 this technic, 'social liability' would carry us all 
 out of the swamp together. For we in fact 
 think, and ought to speak the same thing. Af- 
 ter illustrating the social liabilities of men, for 
 theconduct of others in the frimiiy, in commer- 
 cial relations and as parts of a nation, and as so- 
 
 cial and moral beings affected by the nameless in- 
 fluences of the christian example and deeds of 
 their fellow-men, he proceeds to say: 
 
 1. That every man is by his very nature, intimately 
 connected, in a great variety of ways, with thousands 
 of his fellow-men, whom he has never seen; and that 
 the conduct and the character of a single individual 
 may have an extensive, and a lasting influence upon- 
 millions of his fellow-men, who are far removed from 
 him, both as to time and place. 
 
 2. That these liabilities may be classed under two 
 general heads, viz: — Natural and Positive. The son 
 inherits a diseased or a healthy body, and, in many 
 cases, also an intellectual or moral character; and 
 generation after generation sustains the character of 
 their ancestors, by what may be called a natural in- 
 fluence. Like produces and continues like. But in 
 commercial and political transactions, lasting and im- 
 portant liabilities are created and continued by posi- 
 tive arrangements. 
 
 3. That, in all cases of social liabilities, individual 
 and representative responsibility are always kept dis- 
 tinct. Nor is it, in the most of cases, a very difficult 
 thing to have a clear and distinct conception of these 
 two distinct responsibilities. 
 
 Every citizen of these United Slates, who thinks 
 at all, must feel that himself and his children, and his 
 children's children are deeply interested in the con- 
 duct and character of the President of the U. S. for 
 the time being. An able and virtuous President, 
 with an able and wise and faithful cabinet, must be a 
 great blessing to the millions, both- the born and un- 
 born, on both sides of the Atlantic. And, on the oth- 
 er hand, a weak and a wicked President, and cabinet, 
 must be the occasion of inconceivable inconveniences, 
 and real privations, and sufferings to countless mil- 
 lions, both of the present, and of succeeding genera- 
 tions. But yet no man ever thought of attributing to 
 himself, or to his children, the personal wisdom, or 
 intellectual ability, or inflexible 'integrity, which has 
 marked the character of any distinguished executive 
 officer; nor, on the other hand has he ever thought of 
 being charged individually, or of having his children 
 charged individually, with the weakness, or wicked- 
 ness of a bad executive officer. He, and his children 
 and his neighbors, and their children feel and ac- 
 knowledge, that they are personally and deeply involv- 
 ed in the consequences of the official acts of these 
 men, whether these consequences are of a beneficial 
 or a hurtful tendency; but, at the same time, individ- 
 ual and personal merit and demerit, and individual 
 and personal responsibility, are clearly understood, 
 and never, for a moment, merged in social and rep- 
 resentative transaction. 
 
 From a view of the above facts it follows, 
 
 4. Tiiat the terms, g-«iZ<3/ and innocent, must with 
 every thinking man, be used in a different sense, 
 when they are applied to responsibilities incurred by 
 the conduct of another, from that in which they are 
 used when they are applied to personal conduct. In 
 the former application, ^«iZ<y can only mean liability to 
 suffer punishment, and innocent to be not liable. But 
 in the latter application, they mean, having violated, or 
 having not violated, some moral or positive command- 
 ment. In the one case, the terms apply to a person- 
 al act, and to personal character, but in the other 
 they only mark the nature and the consequences of a 
 certain act, or acts, as these consequences are felt by 
 another person. 
 
G9 
 
 5. In every case of Social Liability, vnity is recog- 
 nized. The individuals concerned may be millions, 
 or only two, and they may be in every other respect 
 and bearing, distinct and separate; but in the partic- 
 ular case in which liability applies, they are in law, on- 
 ly one moral person. 
 
 'J'he father nnd son, the ancestor, and the descen- 
 dant, have only one common nature, or one common 
 right. In commercial transactions, the company is 
 one, though composed of many individuals; and the na- 
 tion acting by the constituted authorities, with all her 
 other varitiea, and differences, while a nation contin- 
 ues one and indivisible. 
 
 And here lei me say, that this principle is re- 
 cognized in the relation of Adam, to his posteri- 
 ty, and of theirs to him, so that the effects in pen- 
 Jil evil, while they blasted him, blasted them 
 also. 
 
 There is in my apprehension something of this 
 constitutional social liability pervading the wliole 
 moral universe, and inseparable from the nature 
 of mind and moral government, and the effects 
 of temptation, character and example. It is 
 probable that rational beings constituted as they 
 are, cannot be brought together, so that the ac- 
 tion of one shall not in some degree affect the 
 others. Whether it was a positive appointment 
 merely, or whether it was an inevitable effect 
 flowing from the nature of things, or which is 
 more probable the united result of both; such 
 was the constitution established by God, be- 
 tween Adam and his seed; so that if Adam 
 should stand all his children would retain their 
 integrity; but if he should fall they would fall 
 with him. And we may well apply to the fall of 
 our first parents the affecting langii.ige of Mark 
 Anthony over Caesar's body: 
 
 'Oh what a full was theic, my countrymen ! 
 Thenyou,anti I, nnd all of us foil down.' 
 
 The constitution was equally certain both 
 ways; and in this respect it was just and equal. 
 If then it be asked, whether I hold that Adam 
 was the federal head of his posterity ? I answer, 
 certainly he was; because that wliicli he did, de- 
 cided what w.is to be the character and conduct 
 of all his posterity'. If the inquiry is made, 
 whether I admit the imputation of Adam's sin? 
 If imputation he understood tomcan, that Adam's 
 posterity were present in him, and thus sinned in 
 him, I answer. No; and Dr. Wilson answers. 
 No. And here we are agreed: and I imagine 
 it would be hard to get a vote in favor of that 
 doctrine in any town meeting you could gether. 
 For if mankind were present in Adam, and in 
 that sense sinned with him, who docs not see 
 that their sin was actual not original? personal, 
 nnd not derived, or transmitted, or propagated? 
 I know that a doctrine like this was taught by 
 no less a man than Edwards himself; and he goes 
 into one of (he most curious discussions that 
 ever was thought of, to show that personal iden- 
 tity is consistent with the actual existence and 
 actual sinning of all Adam's posterity in him; 
 and insisting that each of all mankind was per- 
 sonally present in Adam, when the covenant 
 
 was made, and when it was broken, maintained 
 that there is no distinction between original and 
 actual sin. But the day of such a theory is gone 
 by; it will trouble the church no more. 
 
 Again: if by original sin be meant, tliat Adam's person- 
 al qualities were transfered,ptit over, and stuck on to 
 his posterity, (a theory which like the other had once 
 ils day) I reply that I do not and cannot believe any 
 such thing; neither does Dr. VVilson believe it, and 
 here let me say that all the alarm and all the odium 
 which has been excited in relation to the divines of 
 New England, have arisen from two things: their op- 
 position to the notion of our personal identity with 
 Adam; and their denial of the transfer of his moral 
 qualities to his posterity; But neither of these things 
 is involved in the charges preferrel against me by my 
 brother. Dr. Wilson. 
 
 What Aen is the true doclrine of Original Sin? It 
 is (he oboxiousness ef Adam's posterity to the penal 
 consequences of his transgression; to all that came 
 in that stream of evils which his offence let in upon 
 llie world. Tlie same change of constitution, of na- 
 ture, or, (as Dr. Wilson has it) of character, which 
 was wrought in him by his transgression, appears in 
 them through all their generations. This liability, 
 this exposediiess to punishment, is in tlie Confession, 
 called 'Guilt;' but that worJ, as then u-sed, conveyed 
 theologically, a different meaning from what is now 
 usally attached to the term. By Guilt, wo now un- 
 derstand the desert of punisliment for personal sin; 
 but this is not the sense of the word in the Confession 
 of Faith; lliore it means liability to penal evil in con- 
 sequence of Adam's sin. This was another of the 
 spots, where I stumbled once, at the language of the 
 Coni'ijssion. I could not consent to the punisliment 
 in my person of the guilt of Adam's sin as being per- 
 sonally rny own. To lliit I d) not now conseat. 
 'I'luit 1 now believe the Conlcssion of Fuith not to 
 leach; but 1 cordially receive it as tcacliing that Ad- 
 am was ouriepescnlativc, and tliat on lijs breaking 
 God's righteous covenant with him as such, tlie curse, 
 which fell like a thunder clap and struck the offender, 
 struck with him all his posterity, struck all the ani- 
 mal world, struck the ground on which he stood, and 
 the wliole world in which he dwelt. 
 
 'Earlh fell the wound.' 
 
 This social liability is illustrated in the full of An- 
 gels. The influence of one master spirit drew away 
 (as it would seem from some passages in Scripture) 
 one third pari of tli:j heavenly host. Let sedition and 
 revolt take place in a nation; wlio gets it up? does 
 the enlire mass of the nation all rise spontaneously 
 and simultaneously by one common inpulse? Nu. 
 Some leading mind first fires the train; and tho' one 
 half the population may ultim itely perish under the 
 reaction of the Government, their death is to he tra- 
 ced up to one master spirit as the mover and promoter 
 of the whole commotion. Lotus never forget the 
 maxim — it is worthy to be written in letters of gold, 
 'individual and repesentalive responsibility are always 
 to be kept distinct.' I adopt this language of Dr. 
 Bishop and lay it in, as an exposition of my own views, 
 with respect to the character of .Adam, to guilt as im- 
 puted, and to punishment as the consequence of our 
 social relations. 1 have always adopted the language 
 of Edwards, as correctly staling the truth on this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 'In consequence of Adam's sin, all mankind do 
 
70 
 
 constantly, in all ages, without fail in any one instance," 
 run into the moral evil, which is, in effect, their own 
 utter and eternal perdition, and a total privation of 
 God's favor, and suffering of his vengeance and 
 wrath.' 
 
 So that the real doctrine is not that Adam's 
 posterity were one in personal identity, or per- 
 sonally guilty, by a transfer of sinful moral quali- 
 ties or actions; but simply that apart of the 
 curse of the law fell on the posterity of Adam, 
 as really as on himself; and the punishment was, 
 the loss of original righteousness which would 
 have been their inheritance had Adam obeyed; 
 and that change of the constitution of human 
 nature, from which results the certainty of entire 
 actual sin. Now what the particular change 
 was, which furnished the ground of this absolute 
 certainty, that all mankind would run into sin, 
 I do not profess to understand. Paul, in the 
 fifth chapter of Romans, states the facts of the 
 case, in the imputation of a nature spoiled and 
 under such an effectual bias that as soon as the 
 mind acts, it acts wrong. This is all that I can 
 say touching original sin. All is confusion and 
 darkness beyond this. I have no light and pre- 
 tend to no knowledge. And surely there is no 
 heresy in ignorance. I always believed in 
 original sin, and that Adam was the federal head 
 of his posterity; although I have not used that 
 particular phrase. I believe as much in the 
 truth it is intended to convey, as any man in the 
 church. I believe that God made a covenant 
 with Adam; that its effects reached all his pos- 
 terity and produced in them such a change, that 
 the human mind which before willed right 
 thence forward, was sure to will wrong; that, in 
 consequence of the change which took place in 
 Adam Idmself, the happy bias, which, had Adam 
 stood, would have been the blessed inheritance 
 of all his children, was utterly lost, so that they 
 now inherit a corrupt nature. I have always 
 called it so. I have expressly denominated it a 
 depraved nature. I believe they inherit this not 
 as actual personal sinners, that it comes upon 
 them, not as a punishment of their personal sin, 
 but as a political evil would come upon the peo- 
 ple of the United States from the evil conduct of 
 their Chief Magistrate. In a word, that wc 
 share the character of our progenitor, and all the 
 deplorable effects of his transgression. 
 
 And I shall now show that this is the view 
 entertained by the professors of the Princeton 
 Seminary. Let me read a passage from the 
 Biblical Repertory, for July, 1830, p. 436: 
 
 What we deny, therefore is, first, that this doctrine 
 involves any mysterious union with Adam, any con- 
 fusion of our identity with his, so that his act was 
 personally and properly our act; and secondly, that 
 the moral turpitude of that sin was transferred from 
 him to us; we deny the possibility of any such transfer. 
 These are the two ideas which the Spectator and others 
 consider as necessarily involved in the doctrine of 
 imputation, and for rejecting which, they represent 
 us as having abandoned the old doctrine on the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 The words guUl and punishment are those 
 
 particularly referred to. The former we had defined 
 to be liability or exposedness to punishment. We 
 did not mean to say that the word never included the 
 idea of moral turpitude or criminality. We were 
 speaking of its theological usage. It is very possible 
 that a word may have one sense in common life, and 
 another, somewhat modified, in particular sciences. 
 p. 440. 
 
 Punishment, according to our views, is an 
 
 evil inflicted on a person, in the execution of a judicial 
 sentence, on account of sin. That the word is used 
 in this sense, for evils thus inflicted on one person for 
 the offence of another, cannot be denied. It would 
 be easy to fill a volume with examples of this usage, 
 p. 441. 
 
 These are the two mistaken views vrhich the 
 clergy of New England have always battled 
 with; and I do not believethat, on these points, 
 there is any substantial difference between the 
 tenets of the New England divines, and those of 
 the whole Presbyterian church. You may read 
 Dwight and Bellamy and West, and all her other 
 standard writers, and you will find that they 
 impugn the two points which Dr. Wilson also 
 impugns;and that they hold all the rest. I will 
 next quote Dr. Wilson himself: 
 
 Let us guard here against some mistakes. The 
 doctrine of a union of representation does not involve 
 in it the idea of personal identity. It does not mean 
 that Adam and his posterity are the same identical 
 persons. It does not mean that his act was personally 
 and properly their act. Nor does it mean that the 
 moral turpitude of Adam's sin was transferred to his 
 descendants. The transfer of moral character makes 
 no part of the doctrine of imputation. 
 
 This is all right— very orthodox — and it ex- 
 presses my views exactly. Now let my brother 
 differ from me if he can. I throw these errors 
 overboard; and so does he. And the Repertory 
 says, whoever holds that we are punished for 
 Adam's sin, holds the doctrine of imputation. 
 Well, I hold it; so I hold the doctrine of imputa- 
 tion: that is my doctrine. 
 
 The Repertory says also, guilt is removed by 
 pardon: not personal demerit, but exposure to 
 punishment. 'Guilt' as used now, means desert 
 of punishment for personal crime; and here lies 
 all the difference between us. One party takes 
 guilt in the one sense, and the other takes it in 
 the other, and then they commence a violent 
 contest, like the fight about the color of a shield, 
 which was white on the one side and black on the 
 other. 
 
 The Repertory next comes to the word pun- 
 ishment — and this like the word guilt, has its 
 technical and theological as well as its popular 
 use. And just the same disputes arise here as 
 did with respect to guilt. It is asked how can a 
 man be justly punished for the act of another 
 which happened before he was born? and 'pun- 
 ished' being understood to mean penal evil for 
 personal demerit, the question is unanswerable: 
 but take the word in its theological sense, as 
 meaning evil which comes upon one man in con- 
 
71 
 
 sequence of the act of another with whom he 
 stands connected in social liability, and the 
 difficulty is over. In this latter sense we are 
 punished; in a sense no harder to be understood 
 than how the children of Achan, and of Korah, 
 Dathan and Abiram were punished for the 
 transgressions of their parents, and went down 
 with them into the opening earth or were con- 
 sumed with them in the same fire. That happy 
 and luminous phrase social liability keeps us 
 out of the fog. 
 
 Let me now refer the Presbytery to a judi- 
 cial decision of the General Assembly in the 
 case of Mr. Balch. 
 
 The transferring of personal sin or righteousness 
 has never been held by Calvinislic divines, nor by any 
 person in our church as far as is linown to us. But, 
 with regard to his (Mr. B.'s) doctrine of original sin, 
 it is to be observed , that ho is erroneous in repre- 
 senting personal corruption as not derived from Adam ; 
 mailing Adam's sin to be imputed to his posterity in 
 consequence of a corrupt nature already possessed, 
 and derived from, we know not wliat; thus m effect 
 setting aside tlie idea of Adam's being the federal 
 bead, or representative of his descendants, and 
 the whole doctrine of the covenant of works, p. 
 130. 
 
 Now it may be that there are some things in 
 Dr. Wilson's views respecting Adam's represent- 
 ative character, or on imputation, which I do 
 not understand; but what I do understand and 
 what I teach, is that which I have staled, and it 
 is the same which has been held in the church 
 of God from the days of Augustine until now. 
 I presume and hope that Dr. Wilson and myself 
 are now agreed in our understanding of this 
 matter. 
 
 To close the subject I will again read the 
 passage iilready quoted from my sermon on the 
 Faith, once delivered to the saints. 
 
 [See ante, p. 41.] 
 
 [Presbytery here took a recess.] 
 
 In the next place I am charged hy Dr. Wilson 
 with leaching the doctrine of Perfection. 
 
 On this subject it will not be necessary to go 
 into any extended analysis. The subject in dis- 
 cussion is that of evangelical obedience, and the 
 ability of the sinner to render it. I do teach 
 that a sinner is able to render such obedience as 
 the gospel requires, and that so far as God 
 renders him zviUing he is perfect. But my ser- 
 mon nowhere teaches that God does actually 
 render him willing tokeepall his commandments. 
 I know thiit to effect this nothing is needful but 
 that the sinner should be willing; where once he 
 is so, all obstacle is removed. If my language 
 in the sermon docs convey the idea, that a sin- 
 ner is, ever, so rendered willing that he keeps 
 the entire will of God, I conveyed that which I 
 did not mean. And Dr. Wilson knows that this 
 is and must be so; for he has himself admitted 
 that he dots not believe that I hold the doc- 
 trine of the Perfectionists. But what do I 
 say ? 
 
 Indeed, to be able and unwilling to obey God; is 
 
 the only possible way in which a ftee agent can be- 
 come deserving of condemnation and punishment. 
 So long as he is able and willing to obey, there can 
 be no sin, and the moment the ability of obedience 
 ceases, the commission of sin becomes impossible, 
 p. 11. 
 
 What, then, when he moves on to that work of sov- 
 ereign mercy, which no sinner ever resisted, and 
 without which no one ever submitted to God, what 
 does he do? When he pours the daylight of omni- 
 science upon the soul, ai:d comes to search out what 
 is amiss, and put in order that which is out of the way, 
 what impediment to obedience does he find to be 
 removed, and what work does he perform? He finds 
 only tlie will perverted, and obstinately persisting in 
 its wicked clioice; and in the day of his power, all 
 he accomplishes is, to make the sinner willing, p. 
 19. 
 
 Both passages respect willingness to obey the 
 gospel, and have no reference to a perfect obe- 
 dience of the moral law. 
 
 Dr. Wilson here inquired, whether he had 
 rightly understood Dr. Beecherto say, that God 
 did not render a convicted sinner willing to do 
 all his commands? Dr. Beecher replied that he 
 had said so. God commands us to be perfect. 
 But I am not speaking of legal perfection; my 
 language is to be governed by the subject. I 
 deny that that willingness which God creates in 
 the heart of a christian, ever is such as actually 
 leads him to keep all his commands. 
 
 As to the otherevidence apart from my sermon, 
 I was surprised that Dr. Wilson should bring 
 forward the misapprehension and misconstruction 
 of those whom he holds to be heretics, in order to 
 prove what doctrine I have taught — when what 
 I have taught is on record, and the record is in 
 his hands. And though I will not allow myself 
 to draw unfavorable inferences, and though I 
 desire to give dominion to that charity which 
 hopcth all things, and have worked hard to keep 
 an opposite conclusion out of my mind; still the 
 impression will intrude itself that it was wrong, 
 very wrong in my brother to bring forward such 
 a charge on no better proof. I am a minister of 
 Jesus Christ; and I am placed by his authority 
 and providence at the head of a Theological 
 Institution for the education of those who wish to 
 become ministers after me. The utmost influ- 
 ence which I can wield is needed by an infant 
 institution under its present circumstances; and 
 I have volunteered the jeoparding of my all with 
 a view to build it up, and secure those important 
 and happy results which it promises to accom- 
 plish for this western world. A man so situated 
 ought not lightly to be held up to suspicion. 
 Charges such as those preferred against me, 
 awake the public ear, and hold up me and my 
 character and my designs as objects of unfriendly 
 notice and undefined suspicion. Ought this to 
 be done except on grounds the most solid and 
 irrefragable? Surely it ought not; and there- 
 fore it is, that the constitution of our church 
 makes an accuser responsible for bringing for- 
 ward charges, which he fails tosubstantiatc. 
 
72 
 
 Now what is the evidence that I teach any 
 doctrine of Perfection ? Some young man, some 
 where, has written a letter to Theodore D. 
 Weld, wi(h a view to convert him to the notions 
 of the Perfectionists. And this is brought to 
 prove that /teach those notions! Dr. Wilson 
 knows that this is no evidence. But then he 
 asserts that some of the students in Lane Semin- 
 ary held those notions and were perfectionists in 
 principle. Supposing they were, does that prove 
 that/ taught the doctrine? There was a Hop- 
 kinsian student in Dr. Mason's Seminary in New 
 York — does that prove that Dr. Mason was a 
 Hopkinsian? But there is one fact, which has 
 been proved on the subject, and into whl h Dr. 
 Wilson ought to have inquired, before he ventur- 
 ed to ring the bell of alarm, and that is, that there 
 was not one perfectionist in the Seminary. Pro- 
 fessor Biggs and several of the students have 
 been examined before ycu, and they expressly 
 say, that they do not know of a single young man 
 in that institution who holds (he perfectionist 
 notions. And what was the origin of the report, 
 if report there was, on which Dr. Wilson has 
 founded his charge? It was that some of the 
 students held one of the old Hopkinsian notions, 
 which has been called the exercise scheme; and 
 here let me state that concerning that old Hop- 
 kinsian system, I heard Dr. Green say he could 
 get along with it very well. At all events no 
 body ever thought of calling Emmonism the doc- 
 trine of Perfection. Was ever anything more 
 absurd than such an assertion? Dr. Emmon's 
 notion is, that the exercises of a christian's mind, 
 alternate from good to bad; that such as are 
 good, are perfectly good without mixture of evil; 
 and that such as are bad, are perfectly bad with- 
 out mixture of good: in other words, that the 
 mind swings from perfect selfishness lo perfect benev- 
 olence, and then swings back again: and this is the 
 doctrine of Perfection ! A man might as well say that 
 a mingled shower of pebbles and hail-stones is a 
 shower of perfect hail. And with regard to this ex- 
 ercise scheme itself, had it been openly avowed, and 
 I had had opportunity to attack it, I don't think its 
 sojourn in the seminary would have been a very long 
 one. But even if Emmonism were Perfectionism, 
 (which it is not nor any shadow of it, but which Dr. 
 Spring now holds while he is the appointed represent- 
 ativi! of our church to the churches of Europe, and 
 which he has avowed and published) tliere was not a 
 soul in ths seminary wiio held that these perfect 
 exercises continued in the bosom of the christian — 
 without alternatmg exercises of a contrary character. 
 So far from it, you have heard the witnesses testify, 
 that these students humbly confessed their sins before 
 God in prayer, just as all other christians do. And 
 was this ground on which to hold up a christian min- 
 ister lo the public gaze as a heretic? Have I taught 
 perfection, because I had some Emmonsite studentt, 
 come to me for instruction? Why, I thought that a 
 theological seminary was founded for the very pur- 
 pose of rectifying and directing the opinions of pious, 
 but inexperienced young men on the various topics of 
 theological inquiry. I thought it was an intellectual 
 and doctrinal mill into which minds were cast in their 
 
 rough state, to the very intent that the flour mi^ht be 
 separated from the bran. If our young men are per- 
 fect theologians when they apply to us for admission, 
 we have only to make them a bow and very respect- 
 fully shut the door, recommending them to take 
 license and go to preaching. 
 
 But what is the next fact in evidence. That 
 I have warned the students against the doctrine 
 of perfection. I confess it. I did so; and I sup- 
 posed I was doing my duty. If I warned stu- 
 dents against it, why then I suppose that I did 
 not teach it. It has been testified that I deliver- 
 ed a lecture to them on the seventh of Romans. 
 I did so. And is that the chapter which a man 
 would select who wished to teach the doctrine of 
 perfection? I should think not. But that was 
 the chapter from which I lectured, and the Sab- 
 bath before last I delivered the same lecture in 
 my own church. Where then is the foundation 
 of this injurious charge? Cannot my brother 
 now see that it was wholly premature, and very 
 wrong, to bring charges like this before a court 
 of Jesus Christ, without one shred of evidence 
 to support them? 
 
 Again I am charged with preaching the doc- 
 trine of regeneration as accomplished by the 
 truth. On a topic like this much might be said. 
 I shall, however, content myself with saying but 
 little. I have no theory to produce and descant 
 upon ; but shall refer simply to the catechism and 
 to the Bible. What says the shorter catechism? 
 
 Q. 89. How is the word made effectual lo salva- 
 tion? 
 
 A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but es- 
 pecially the preaching of the word, an effectual means 
 of convincing and converting sinners, and of building 
 them up in holines and comfort, through faith, unto 
 salvation. 
 
 And what says the larger catechism? 
 
 Q. 155. How. is the word made effectual to salva- 
 tion? 
 
 A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but es- 
 pecially the preaching of the word, an effectual means 
 of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of 
 driving them out of themselves, and drawing them un- 
 to Christ; of conforming them to bis image, and sub- 
 duing them to his will; of strengthening themagainst 
 temptations and corruptions; of building them up in 
 grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and 
 comfort through faith unto salvation. 
 
 And what says the Confession? 
 
 All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, 
 and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and ac- 
 cepted lime, effecfliaily to call, by his word and Spirit, 
 out of that state of sin and death in which they are 
 by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; en- 
 lightening their minds spiritually and savingly to un- 
 derstand the things ofGod; taking away their heart of 
 stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renew- 
 ing their wills, and by his almighty power determin- 
 ing them to that which is good; and effectually draw- 
 ing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most 
 freely, being made willing by his grace, ch. x. sec. 1. 
 
 And now I beg leave to submit such quota- 
 tions from the Bible as shall present the views 
 that I entertain on this subject. 
 
73 
 
 See Rom. viti. 80. xi. 10; Eph. i. 10, 11 ; 2d Tbess. 
 ii. 13, 14; 2d Cor. iii. 3, 6; Rom. viii. 2; Eph. ii. 1-5; 
 2d Tim. i. 9, 10; Acts xxvi. 18; 1st Cor. ii. 10, 12; 
 Eph. i. 17, 18; Ezek. xxxvi. 26, xi. 19; Phil. ii. 13; 
 Deut. XXX. 6; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; Eph. i. 19; John vi. 
 44, 45; Cant. i. 4; Psa. ex. 3; John vi. 37; Rom. 
 vi. 16, 17, 18. 
 
 The whole matter turns upon this — a thing which 
 is done by instrumental agency, cannot at the same 
 time be done by direct agency; because it involves a 
 contradiction. Now our book says, that regeneration 
 is accomplished by the instrumentality of the word of 
 God, the gospel of Christ; and the Bible declares, 
 that men are begotten by the incorruptible seed of the 
 word — and Paul declares that it is by the cross of 
 Christ that he is crucified to the world. The Cate- 
 chism and the Bible, therefore, both say that the sav- 
 ing change in man is accomplished by instrumentality; 
 and the charge against me implies that this is untrue. 
 We both admit that it is God who converts; bull say 
 he converts men through his word of truth, and Dr. 
 Wilson says that ho converts them by a direct agency, 
 without any intervening instrumentality whatever, — 
 On account of this difference between us, he charges 
 me with heresy. My answer is, to the law and to the 
 testimony. 
 
 And first, the subject does not require in its 
 own nature the intervention of God's naked om- 
 nipotency. This indeed would be required, if an 
 operation was to be performed in the natural 
 world. Matter can be moved in no other way. 
 But as the effect is a moral one, being none other 
 than a change of an enemy into a friend, what 
 is the instrumentality by which it is to be effect- 
 ed? Must not that be moral also? Why did 
 Christ die? Why was his atoning blood put 
 into the hand of the Spirit, to be thrown by him 
 upon hard-hearted man, that he may be subdued 
 to love and obedience? Are these the means 
 which God employs, when he works a change 
 in things material and natural? What should 
 God employ to move a free agent, but the mo- 
 tives so abundantly contained in his own word? 
 
 The charge assumes that He works this change 
 without means of any kind. Now I don't phil- 
 osophize about the matter. Let them who do, 
 tell us how enemies are reconciled. It is not for 
 me to say how God does this work. It is for 
 God alone to tell. God says he does it by the 
 word; and the catechism says he makes the word 
 an effectual means of doing it; and if the 
 word has done it, and has been effectual in doing 
 it, then it is not done without the word, by di- 
 rect power. If a thing cannot be done in two 
 different ways, at the same time, and it is known 
 from good evidence that it is done in one way; 
 then we know that it is not done in the other way. 
 A tree cannot be cut down with an ax, and at 
 the same time pushed down by the unaided 
 strength of a man's hand. If he pushes it down, 
 he does not cut it down; if he cuts it down, he 
 does not push it down ! And as God has said 
 that he makes the preaching of the gospel ef- 
 fectual, no man may set fisiHe God's testimony, 
 in order to introduce his own philosophy. This 
 is my ground: it is not new divinity; and if it is 
 
 heresy, I shall carry it out of the church with 
 me — and yet I hope that I shall leave it in the 
 church, too. 
 
 Presbytery adjourned until Tuesday morning, 
 and closed with prayer. 
 
 Tuesday morning, June 17lh, — Presbytery 
 met and was opened with prayer. Dr. Beecher 
 resumed his defence: 
 
 It has been said, that ability and obligation, 
 when brought together, imply absolute perfec- 
 tion. And so say the Perfectionists. But Dr. 
 Wilson does himself great injustice, if he says 
 that there is no man but must be perfect, if he 
 has the power of being so. That proposition 
 assumes, that every free agent does all that he is 
 able to do; so that if you show that he is able to 
 keep God's commandments, it proves that he does 
 keep them. 
 
 I have proved that man is able to obey the com- 
 mandments of God, whether in the gospel or the 
 law. But Dr. Wilson says, if so, then I hold 
 that man is perfect; because no free agent has 
 ability, unless he does all that he is coinmaded 
 to do. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson said, that Dr. Beecher had ad- 
 milted, that so long as a man is both able and 
 willing, there can be no sin. Did he mean to re- 
 fute his own argument?] 
 
 Dr. Beecher replied by asking whether all 
 men who were able to pay their honest debts, do 
 always pay them? and whether if a man did not 
 pay his debts, it follows that of course he was 
 not able? Did a miser give always according to 
 his ability? or is not a liar able to speak the 
 truth? Dr. Beecher said, that he was amazed 
 at the argument of the Perfectionists; and still 
 more, that his brother Wilson should have clas- 
 sed himself with them. 
 
 But, said Dr. Beecher, another argument 
 brought against me is that the heresies I have 
 taught lead to the doctrine of perfection, as their 
 natural result. Dr. Wilson has conceded, that 
 he himself never supposed I meant to teach per- 
 fection. But he affirms that I teach that from 
 which others draw the doctrine of perfection aa 
 an inference. Now admitting the fact that 
 they do draw such an inference, the question is, 
 whether they draw it logically; whether my 
 premises lead to any such conclusion? And I 
 have proved that they do not. Will Dr. Wilson 
 affirm, that a man holds and teaches whatsoever 
 other men draw as inferences from his language? 
 There were ignorant and unlearned men who 
 perverted even the language of Paul. If a 
 man's doctrine is to be tested by the use which 
 heretical persons make of it, then Dr. Wilson 
 himself is most certainly a heretic. For did not 
 the Shakers claim him? and did not the New 
 Lights claim him? They did; and insisted that 
 in maintaining their systems, they were only 
 carrying out the principles which Dr. Wilson 
 had laid down. Such a ground of charge will 
 not do; it is a sword which cuts both ways. 
 
 Another charge, which I am to answer, is that 
 
74 
 
 of having slandered the whole church of God. 
 1 rather think that such slander is not ac- 
 tionable. Men are usually prosecuted for slan- 
 dering one another; for speaising falsely of men 
 above ground, not below ground; and the whole 
 Church of God is not a living agent to be the 
 •object of slander. All that I have done is to 
 state historical facts, according to my knowledge 
 of history. And if, in so doing, I have even fal- 
 len into error, it is not slander. If I have mis- 
 read the documents, left to us by the fathers, it 
 as a mistake, but it is not slander. But I have 
 proved the truth of my allegations with respect 
 to the church. I have shown that she holds and 
 -has held in all ages, that man is a free agent, but 
 lies in condition of moral impotency; and I say 
 that this is no slander on the church, but the re- 
 verse. It is not to her discredit, but to her hon- 
 or, that she believes the truth. If I had said 
 that the church held the doctrine of fatalism, 
 and had failed to prove it, that would have been 
 a slander indeed. And now I ask (vhether Dr. 
 Wilson's charity could not by any ingenuity 
 have found out a more favorable construction to 
 put upon my course? And even admitting that 
 I had fallen into a mistake, in stating what 
 I believe to be true; could he not have found 
 /or my error a more brotherly name? 
 
 Or. Wilson's other charge against me, is that 
 of hypocrisy. The occasion of his preferring 
 this charge was the refusal of Presbytery to in- 
 stitute an inquiry into the sentiments I held on 
 the ground of common fame. Being dissatisfied 
 with that decision, he appealed to the Synod, in 
 which Court I defended the course the Presby- 
 tery had pursued; denied the existence of 
 that common fame, which had been alleged to 
 -exist, and to furnish ground of process against 
 me; and openly avowed my faith in the Confes- 
 sion. It is in this avowal that I am said to have 
 acted hypocritically. The doctrines I held, were 
 as well known then as they are now; and when 
 I spoke of the Confession's containing the truth, 
 ■the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, my 
 words are to be interpreted by the subject on 
 which I was speaking, and are not to be taken 
 out of the record and made to apply to some- 
 thing else which I was not talking about. The 
 entire system of doctrine contained in the Con- 
 fession was not the matter in dispute: the discus- 
 sion had reference only to a few points of doc- 
 trine, concerning which I was charged with 
 holding error. It is an irrefragable lawof jn- 
 terpretation, that words, spoken are to be under- 
 stood in reference only to the matter concern- 
 ing which they were uttered. Now it was in 
 reference to these particular doctrines, that I 
 said, there had been a time when I could not ful- 
 ly accord with the language of the Confession; 
 but that since I had attended more fully to the 
 subject, and had acquired more knowledge of 
 the meaning of the terms employed as technics, 
 at the time the Confession was adopted, — terms 
 now obsolete but llien well understood— I had 
 
 become convinced that instrument did contain 
 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth. I had no such thought as applying this 
 language, rigidly, to the whole Confession, and 
 every particular it contained; but I meant the 
 remark in reference to the doctrines concerning 
 which, it was said my soundness was suspected: 
 and they are doctrines of vital importance. With 
 respect to these, I once more repeat the declara- 
 tion, our Confession teaches the truth, the whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth. If indeed, 
 some of its terms are taken in (he meaning usu- 
 ally attached to them at this day, it speaks error; 
 but receiving its language in the sense in which 
 the framers intended, it speaks the very truth. 
 
 Nor did I say this for the sake of making a 
 flourish, and producing popular effect; and had 
 theinlercourse between myself and my brother 
 Wilson been such, as I weep to think it has not 
 been, had he felt the warm beatings of my heart, 
 while he opened his own to me in return, he 
 would not have suspected me of such a manoeu- 
 vre. It has never belonged to my character, 
 either here or any where else, to conceal, my 
 feelings and mask my sentiments. I alwaysgo 
 heart first. But brother Wilson seems to think 
 that I go head first, and sometimes rather reck- 
 lessly. 
 
 But suppose there is, on close examination, 
 some discrepancy between my faith and the Con- 
 fession, does it necessarily follow that I see and 
 hide it? That I have secret meanings which I 
 keep back from the public view? Is there no 
 such thing possible as a mistake? And if a man 
 thinks he agrees, when he really differs, must he 
 be a hypocrite? Do men never make mistakes 
 who are admitted to be honest? And is it not 
 within the range of possibility, that the things 
 which I hold to be in the Confession, actually are 
 in it; and that it is others who differ from it^ and 
 not I? Before Dr. Wilson can established this 
 charge, he must prove two things: first, what 
 I said; and secondly, that I was not and could 
 not be honest in saying it. Has he proved 
 them? Can he prove them? He has not 
 proved them; but he has publicly made the 
 charge; and I cannot but consider his course in 
 this matter, as unkind, unbrotherly and invidi- 
 ous. Christian charity hopeth all things, and 
 believeth all things; and it never will admit the 
 existence of sin in a brother, and especially a sin 
 so odious as that of hypocrisj^, till the proof is 
 irresistible. 
 
 I have attempted to show that the Confession 
 teaches man's natural ability ns a free agent, 
 and his moral inability, as a fallen and lost sin- 
 ner; that on the subjects of original sin, includ- 
 ing federal representation, the covenant witii 
 Adam and his posterity, the imputation of sin, 
 the guilt of it, its punishment, and the original 
 bias of our nature and will, I have taught noth- 
 ing against the Confession of Faiih. On the 
 contrary, all that I have written and avowed on 
 these subjects, is in strict accordance with the 
 
75 
 
 Confession; with the views of the standard 
 writers in the church, and with the Bible. I 
 have shown that my views of regeneration, by 
 the special influence of the Spirit, and the instru- 
 mentality of truth, are expressed fully by the 
 Larger and Shorter Catechisms and by the 
 article concerning effectual calling, in the Con- 
 fession. I do not deny, but admit, the interpo- 
 sition of the direct power of God so far as it re- 
 spects he bodily and natural power of man, so 
 far as these are calculated to impede his emanci- 
 pation from sin. Whatever impediment may 
 arise from bodily habit or constitution, may 
 be, and no doubt is, operated upon directly; 
 and in these respects I never denied or disbe- 
 lieved that an exertion of God's natural power, 
 so far as it respects natural things, is concern- 
 ed in the work of man's regeneration. This 
 I have always believed, and we'll I may; for 
 nothing but the direct interposition of God's 
 almighty power can account for my own convic- 
 tion of sin, which was as instantaneous as a flash 
 of lightning. What was it that opened my 
 eyes? What was it that directed my natural 
 powers to such thoughts as instantly filled and 
 absorbed them? How was it, that the whole 
 train of the operations of my mind was, in a 
 moment, turned to that subject and that alone; 
 and that the, whole hemisphere wasinstantaneous- 
 Jy filled with light? What convinced me in an 
 instant of my sin, and spread before me the ter- 
 rors of the law of God? How was it Ihat I saw 
 at a glance, the broad circumference of that 
 law, and my own voluntary, total, and constant 
 violation of it? No doubt there was a direct 
 interposition; no doubt there was in some re- 
 spects, and to a certain degree, an exertion of 
 God's omnipotent power. But it was his own 
 truth that wrought upon my hert. God 
 does not change man, as if he were a block; but 
 as a free agent, and by means properly ad- 
 apted to a free agent, according as it seems good 
 in his own sight; and he puts forth his natural 
 power,only so far as to make that which is moral 
 more sure in its results. 
 
 There is but another point which needs ex- 
 planation, and on which the minds of some of 
 my brethren may still labor. I have already 
 shown that my sermon on the native charac- 
 ter of man, was not designed to have any 
 reference to original sin; that it spake only 
 of the present, actual condition of adult mind; 
 nnd that the question how a man came into 
 such a state, was not so much as touched; that 
 I was teaching the existence of total depra- 
 vity against a wily and practised antagonist, 
 with the sole view of cutting up his false posi- 
 tions, and proving regeneration necessary; and 
 that if I did say what had the appearance of 
 looking back and of doubting or denying the 
 doctrine of original sin, my language is not to 
 be so understood. But, it is said, that though it 
 might not have been my express meaning to 
 sweep awa}' the doctrine of original sin, yet that 
 
 I constructed a scythe which effectually did the 
 work; and that there can be no such thing as 
 reconciling the proposition there laid down, 
 with the belief of original sin, at all. I pre- 
 sume this is the difficulty. Now to explain it 
 will be easy. There were two systems in regard 
 to adult actual depravity. The one holding de- 
 pravity to be a moral instinct, a created faculty 
 of the soul as much as any other faculty which 
 controlled the will according to its moral nature 
 as the helm governs the ship, and upon which 
 the will could no more act, than the ship can act 
 on the helm. The other a philosophy which 
 discards this instinctive involuntary moral taste 
 and substitutes the direct efficiency of God for 
 the creation of all exercises and acts of choice, 
 good and bad. 
 
 These philosopbical tlieories were prevalent long 
 before this controversy arose. Ttie question concern- 
 ing original sin, was not discussed in my congrega- 
 tion; touching tliat question, all was as quiet as the 
 sleep of infancy. The question was as to the volun- 
 tariness of the depravity of an adult man. Keep this 
 in remembrance, and tlieh let me explain the drift of 
 that sermon. After proving that the depravity of 
 man is very great, 1 proceed in the sermon, to say 
 tiiat it is voluntary, and lliis doctrine I advance in 
 opposition to the philosophy which represents the ex- 
 istence of a great black pool, somewhere behind tlie 
 will; I don't know how big; but which continually 
 pours out its waters of death, killing all the grass and 
 withering all the plants, and spreading ruin and des- 
 olation wherever they coine: waters wiiich turn the 
 will as if it were a mill-wheel — attaciicd to some 
 sort of patent model, which is continually working 
 out sin. 1 do not of course intend to be understood 
 as giving the language in wiiich the doctrine is ad- 
 vanced. I seize upon metaphors because I have 
 nothing better to express my view of it. The doc- 
 trine 1 meant to oppose, was that of a physical, na- 
 tural, constitutional depravity, totally involuntary; 
 and as instinctive us the principle which teaches a 
 robin to build her nest, or a lion to cat flesh and not 
 grass. Against this notion of instinctive depravity, 
 leading men of necessity to do nothing but sin, I 
 composed the sermon in whicli I declare, 
 
 ' [That the depravity of [adult] man, implied in his 
 destitution ot religion, is voluntary; Ihat neither a holy 
 nor depraved nature, in respect to actual depravity, is 
 possible; that enmity to God, impenitence, and unbe- 
 lief, constituting the depravity of adult man, are vol- 
 unlary, obstinate, and inexcusable wickedness.] 
 
 1 said so then, and I say so still; and if tliat is here- 
 sy, the court will say so; or if the presbytery does 
 not, the general assembly will; and if for holding 
 these sentiments it shall he needful for me to leave 
 the church, it is easy to judge whether iny duty will 
 be to obey God or to obey man. There is, and there 
 must be, something on account of which the will al- 
 ways acts right or always acts wrong; something 
 anterior to voluntary action; some reason why men 
 go right or go wrong; and this we may, without im- 
 propriety, call a holy or an unholy nature. Native 
 depravity is tlie constitutional ground of the certain- 
 ty that man will act wrong; and when I say that 
 tliere can bo neither holy nor unholy action with- 
 out k nowledge, conscience , and a will, I do not mean 
 that there is not something in man, which makes it 
 
76 
 
 certain he will err. But 1 only say, that it does not 
 include unbelief and sin as involuntary and necessa- 
 ry. I do not throw back actual sin on that which is 
 anterior to all action. 
 
 I repeat it, that I am speaking in the sermon 
 of adult man. 1 say that his wickedness, which 
 is to be overcome by regeneration, is voluntary; 
 the act of one who has understanding, con- 
 science and will. But I do not say, that there 
 is nothing before the will which is derived from 
 Adam's sin; but I call it a depraved nature 
 in a different sense from actual transgression. — 
 I insist that all his unbelief and sin arc volunta- 
 ry; and that if j'ou take away understanding, 
 conscience, and the freedom of the will, all ac- 
 countability is gone. The being is no longer a 
 man ; he is a stone, an oyster. 
 
 One more topic remains to which I must soli- 
 cit the attention of the presbytery. Supposing 
 that, in the explanations I have made, I shall 
 not have succeeded in convincing all my breth- 
 ren of my entire agreement with the Confes- 
 sion and the Bible, as they understand both; still 
 the discrepancy is not such as is inconsistent 
 with the ends of church fellowship and an hon- 
 est subscription to the Confession. 
 
 1. Similar differences have existed from the 
 beginning. My position is this, that a hair's 
 breadth coincidence in each particular point, 
 never was made, or understood or intended to 
 be made, a pre-requisite condition of adopting 
 the Confession. Nor has it ever been so in 
 practice. The court has only to decide on 
 one thing: whether my differences, if I do dif- 
 fer, are such as to vacate the system; to put a 
 sword into its vitals. If they are, then I ought 
 to be put out of the church forthwith. But if 
 they leave the system heart-whole, with all its 
 great organization complete and untouched, and 
 there is only a philosophical difference with re- 
 spect to some of its parts; then, I saj', such dif- 
 ferences have ever existed in the church, and 
 subscription to the Confession has never been 
 understood as implying the contrary. 
 
 2. The differences have been so great, that 
 they did, at one time, produce a temporary sep- 
 aration between the Synods of New York and 
 Philadelphia. The Synods were divided on 
 what were then called new measures and new 
 divinity: and in the heat of strife, they remain- 
 ed apart for nine years — ^yet 
 
 3. Without any change of opinion or any re- 
 linquishment of their respective peculiarities, 
 they came together again, wept over all their 
 divisions and alienations, and unkind and un- 
 brotherly feelings towards each other; and 
 adopted the Confession of Faith, with a decla- 
 ration, that a subscription to it implied no more 
 than this, that the subscriber believed it to con- 
 tain the system of truth taught in the Word of 
 God. I ask, did these Synods come together 
 on the ground that the Confession contained the 
 truth of God, in the sense in which each other 
 understood it? — or as themselves understood it. 
 
 They knew better than to adopt it in any other 
 way. Did they mean by mutual subscription 
 to imply, that there was an exact agreement, as 
 to their views in all things? Far from it. They 
 came together with better religious views and 
 feelings; they had found by sad experience that 
 where contention is, there is every evil work; 
 and they mutually agreed to bury the hatchet 
 and walk together under that compromise 
 which alone had first made our church, and un- 
 der which she had grown up in the enjoyment 
 of unparalleled prosperity and the brightest 
 smiles of Heaven. And at this day the ques-. 
 tion is, whether a controversy, which sundered 
 the church for nine years, and all whose fruits 
 were wormwood and gall, shall be renewed, 
 by making exact agreement in all things essen- 
 tial to the adoption of the common symbol; and 
 whether those volcanic fires, which have once 
 rent the bosom of the church, shall now break 
 forth anew and burn with redoubled fury, deso- 
 lating in all directions all that is good and fair! 
 That there have always existed diversities of 
 sentiment which, if pressed i\nd insisted on, 
 might have furnished ground of separation, I 
 can show from various sources. 
 
 In a note appended to Wilson's Essay on the 
 Probation of Fallen Man, page 101, is an ex- 
 press resolution by these Synods which excludes 
 all idea of entire and strict uniformity. It is 
 as follows: 
 
 When the Westminister Confession and Catechisms 
 were received by the Presbyterian Church in Ameri- 
 ca, and adopted by a Synodical act, in 1729, it was 
 with this Proviso: 
 
 'And in case any minister of the Synod, or candi- 
 date for the ministry, shall have any scruple vvith re- 
 spect to any article or articles of said Confession, he 
 shall in time of making said declaration, declare his 
 scruples to the Synod or Presbytery; who shall, not- 
 withstanding, admit him to the exercise of the min- 
 istry within our bounds, and to ministerial commun- 
 ion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scru- 
 ples not essential, or necessary in doctrine worship or 
 government. The act of Synod, in 1729, was the 
 basis of Union in 1758 : but the discretionary powers 
 of a Presbytery, in trying those whom they are to or- 
 dain, are secured to them by the Word of God, and 
 can neither be taken away nor abandoned.' 
 
 Three of the Presidents of Princeton Col- 
 lege, viz: Edwards, Witherspoon, and Davies, 
 held to the doctrine of the new school, on the 
 subject of man's natural ability; these, it is ad- 
 mitted, were some of the most illustrious men 
 that the church has ever been favored to possess; 
 and yet they held that very heresy, for which I 
 am now to be turned out of the church. I might 
 add to the number the name of Samuel Stanhope 
 Smith, for he agreed with them in this opinion. 
 But lam not now in possession of the document- 
 ary proof necessary to establish the fact. Were 
 these men charged with heresy? on the contra- 
 ry they are to this day eulogized in the highest 
 strains, by the very men who are now the cham- 
 pions of orthodoxy in the Presbyterian Church. 
 
rr 
 
 What man has more exactly or more fully stated 
 the doctrines I hold, on the subject of natural 
 ability and moral inability, than Dr. Wither- 
 spoon? and yet who has been more extolled by 
 Dr. Green? 
 
 But it is said that the General Assembly it- 
 self, our highest ecclesiastical judicatory, has 
 condemned my sentiments in the case of Davis's 
 book, entitled the Gospel Plan. I deny the fact. 
 Had I the documents in my hand, I could show 
 that his condemnation was not based on these 
 doctrines alone, or on these mainly. He was 
 condemned on ten distinct charges, out of which 
 two only refer to sentiments at all resembling 
 mine. And I say that there is nothing to show 
 that Davis would have been put out of tho 
 church simply on the ground of these two char- 
 ges; especially when the self same positions 
 as are here made the ground of accusation, had 
 been previously taken by such men as Wither- 
 spoon, that great apostle of truth, and by Pres- 
 ' idcnt Davis, that man wlioee whole soul wag 
 one flame of fire in the cause and service of Je- 
 sus C/hrist. The man might very well have 
 been condemned on such an array of different 
 errors, when had he taught only the doctrine of 
 natural ability he might have remained undis- 
 turbed in possession of his ministerial standing. 
 I know very well that many at that day, as at 
 this, held natural ability to be an error. But I 
 deny that any man had then, or has since, been 
 put out of the church for holding either this doc- 
 trine or any of the others, on which it is now 
 sought to destroy me. And the proof is, that 
 men known, not only by their preaching but by 
 their writings, to hold these sentiments have not 
 only been tolerated, but have stood high in 
 honor and influence throughout the church. — 
 They were held by Dr. Wilson of Philadel- 
 pliia — why was not he tried? The Assembly 
 met ill Philadelphia every year; his sentiments 
 were no secret, but it was more than Dr. Green 
 dared to do. The breath of slander had never 
 tainted his fair character, his well earned and 
 illustrious reputation; and lie has gone to heaven 
 with as unspotted a fame in the Presbyterian 
 church, as any redeemed spirit whom angels 
 have conducted to glory. 
 
 When Ml-. Barnes was tried. Dr. Spring de- 
 clared that he was ready to sink or swim with 
 him; and yet after that declaration. Dr. Spring 
 has been sent by the voice of the General As- 
 sembly as their public and honored representa- 
 tive to the churches of Europe. What then is 
 tiic matter, which makes that so bad in one man, 
 that he must be excommunicated; while it is so 
 innocent in another that he may go all over the 
 world, reprcsnnting (he Presbyterian church of 
 the United States? All that I hold is the old 
 approved New England divinity; it is that and 
 nothing else. And all the attempts which have 
 been made to identify me with the New Haven 
 sfhool,nsthat is represented, are slander. There 
 is nothing new in my creed. I learned it under 
 
 Dr. D wight; and my preaching is as sound as 
 was the preaching of that illustrious man. If 
 there is anything new in the school which has 
 been named after Dr. Taylor, it has not origina' 
 ted or changed the faith I hold. If Dr. Taylor 
 is a heretic, he stands on his own bottom, and he 
 alone must answer it. I stand for myself, and 
 for the Confession of Faith, and for the Bible; 
 and all attempts to get a fog around another 
 man , and then say that I believe the same as he 
 does, are slanders. I protest against this repre- 
 sentative heresy, this plan of dressing somebody 
 else with bear skins until yon have made him 
 an object of fear and horror, and then to cry 
 out Dr. Beecher believes as he does. Oh! but 
 Dr. Taylor is my friend and that confirms it. — 
 Alas! is every man a heretic, because his friend 
 is unhappily falsely accused of heresy? I con- 
 fess without hesitation that I don't believe Dr. 
 Taylor is worthy of ecclesiastical disfranchise- 
 ment. He would be, I admit, if he believed 
 as some understand and represent him to believe; 
 but that is quite a different case. I have always 
 refused to permit Dr. Taylor's opinions, or those 
 of any other man, to be the representatives of 
 mine; but I have as uniformly declared my dis- 
 belief of his unsoundness in the faith, and have 
 refused to join the cry of heresy and denuncia- 
 tion. I hold the peculiar doctrines of the New 
 England divinity, as they were taught fifty years 
 ago; and respecting which Dr. Green said that 
 he had no objection to them; that he could gel 
 along with them very well. Nor was this the 
 opinion of Dr. Green alone. The General As- 
 sembly must have been of the same mind, for 
 they laid down a plan of union and fellowship 
 between the Presbyterian church and the church- 
 es of New England; and for a long time their 
 delegates voted in each other's courts; and to 
 this very hour, you give these men the right hand 
 of fellowship. ^V^ill it be said that their doc- 
 trines were not known? Their doctrines were 
 published to the whole world, and were as well 
 known then, as they are now; and it was with 
 a full knowledge of these doctrines, that those 
 churches were admitted to correspondence. — 
 Can there be a stronger proof that the senti- 
 ments of the New England divines were not 
 considered heretical? I stand sheltered, there- 
 fore, by deliberate and reiterated decisions of 
 the whole Presbyterian church. I very well re- 
 member the commencement of that arrange- 
 ment. The young Edwards, president of Union 
 College, was at the head of the committee who 
 reported a plan to the General Assembly; ac- 
 cording to which ruling elders and committee- 
 men were allowed to sit side by side in the Gen- 
 eral Assembly itself. The object of the ar- 
 rangement was the accommodation and com- 
 fort of that flood of emigrant piety which came 
 pouring from New England, and settling down 
 in the midst of Presbyterians, in all our new set- 
 tlements. The distinction, which kept brother 
 from brother, on account of a mere difference in 
 
78 
 
 ecclesiastical connections, weakened both; and 
 impaired and often prevented their ability to 
 support the gospel among them. Remove the 
 separating partition, allow them to unite, and 
 they would both become strong. When the 
 Presbyterian church received these strangers 
 into a restricted union with herself, she perfectly 
 well knew the materials she took, and what no- 
 tions they held; and it is too late at this time of 
 day to turn about and kick those out of the 
 church, who had been received into it on a mu- 
 tual agreement; when no change has taken place 
 in their religious belief, and no stain is alleged 
 against their moral character. Brethren may 
 say, it was very wrong that they were admitted; 
 it was a thing that ought never to have been 
 done. Very well, you have a right to your own 
 opinion on that question. But it was done; 
 and now you must restrain, your impatience, un- 
 til it shall regularly and in an orderly manner be 
 undone. But you are not to enact ex post facto 
 laws, and hang men who came into your church 
 in obedience to laws then existing. Give us 
 fair warning; take back your recognition; let 
 us out unharmed with as fair a character as we 
 came in; and then if any of us shall put his 
 head in, catch him if you can. We are now 
 in, and we came in on your own invitation. Now 
 does the church of God invite heretics into her 
 bosom and admit them to vote in her courts? — 
 Does she hold ministerial fellowship with here- 
 tics? Does she place heretical committee-men 
 on the same bench with her own orthodox elders? 
 It won't do. It is going too far. The church has 
 declared that what I hold is not heresy; and she 
 has made the declaration in various ways and in 
 almost every possible form. Even the last as- 
 sembly refused to dissolve the existing alliance, 
 and only recommended that no more churches 
 be formed on that plan. But here is Dr. Wil- 
 son's own letter. When he wrote it, he knew 
 that I had held this doctrine and he had no evi- 
 dence that I had ever renounced it. And here 
 is Dr. Miller's letter, who knew my sentiments 
 as well as Dr. Wilson knew them; and never- 
 theless urged me vehemently to come to Phila- 
 delphia, to be a sort of pillar there; and accord- 
 ing to his own flattering representations, to ex- 
 ert a tranquilizing influence amid all their con- 
 tentions, endeavoring to make me believe that I 
 was the man of all others, best calculated to ac- 
 complish that great work. Does Dr. Miller not 
 know what is heresy? Would he persuade me 
 to come and put my hand to the Confession of 
 Faith against a good conscience? Never. I 
 have therefore every possible proof that in em- 
 bracing the Confession, I have done that which 
 the church and the luminaries of the church, 
 thought consistent with a godly sincerity. 
 
 As to Dr. Wilson, he had evidence of my 
 heresy as far back as 1817. He had all that 
 time to ponder upon it, and yet he united in call- 
 ing me; and when I came at his call, met me 
 with a back stroke. Now if the church is con- 
 
 vinced of her error, and chooses to tighten her 
 cords and to exclude from her communion all 
 who hold the original doctrines of the New Eng- 
 land divines, free from all alleged admixtures of 
 Taylorism or other admixtures, she certainly 
 has a right to doit. She may, if she chooses, 
 turn out all her New England children, after 
 they have done so much to build her walls and ex- 
 tend her influence and power. But she has no 
 right to make that a crime which she has herself 
 legitimated, and invited us to do, and never turn- 
 ed out any for doing. I will now close with 
 some miscellaneous remarks. 
 
 This western world is a great world; and it 
 needs great influences to bring it out from the 
 state of chaos which has grown out of the mixed- 
 character of its population. It exhibits to the 
 eye of the philosopher and the christian, an en- 
 tirely new spectacle. Never till now was the 
 scriptura Iprediction so near to a literal fulfil- 
 ment, that a nation should be born in a day. 
 
 It is destined, and that very soon, to be the great- 
 est of the nations; and its chief glory is that God has 
 established in it the principles of his truth, and seems 
 to have selected it as a theatre on which to display 
 their happiest effects. Nor is there any society of 
 men whom God has favored and honored with oppor- 
 tunity to accomplish a greater work, than the Pres- 
 byterian Church in these United States. This may be 
 said with sober truth and without any invidious com- 
 parison. And whatsoever she is able to do is most im- 
 periously needed. The interests of this whole west; 
 the intterests of our nation and of the world ; the in- 
 terests of liberty and of religion demand it at her 
 hands. If the Presbyterian church shall preserve 
 harmony within her borders; if her ministers shall 
 proceed on the ground of bearing and forbearing, 
 there are no limits to the power which this our beau- 
 tiful and blessed church shall be ablo to send forth to 
 give strength and glory to the land. But if she shall 
 divide, wo 's the day — it shall be like that day de- 
 scribed in the Revelation, when those who have 
 been enriched by her merchandise shall stand at a 
 distance, and beholding her burnings, cry out, ahsl 
 alas! that in one day so great riches should come to 
 desolation. Look to it! brethren: a little precaution, 
 a little kindness, a little of that charity which restored 
 the two synods to each other's fellowship, thereby 
 laying the foundation for the Presbyterian church — 
 will carry us safely over this exigency, and make us a 
 great and undivided people, terrible to God's adver- 
 saries as an army, with banners. 
 
 But should you choose an opposite course, to-mor- 
 row's' sun may not have gone down before you may 
 have cut asunder the cords of our unity and strength, 
 and broken our church up into fragments. 
 
 Mind is a difficult thing to associate with 
 mind; and when you have got them together, it 
 is a difficult and a delicate thing to keep the 
 union unbroken; it is like broken bones, which 
 are commencing to re-unile; one unguarded 
 touch may in a moment sunder them again: and 
 that the Devil knows right well. Yet it is com- 
 paratively easy to keep men together, who by 
 long habit have been accustomed to march shoul- 
 der to shoulder. It is easy in comparison to 
 
79 
 
 keep onward with the stream of grace and the 
 breathings of the Spirit; but in an evil hour iet 
 the bonds of her unity be sundered, and then 
 ^ ^ bring the church together again if you can. Re- 
 member that she contains elements of strife, such 
 as were never before gathered together for the 
 production of evil. Consider that there are 
 within these United States, notions and feel- 
 ings which lead to nullification. Let that spirit 
 once get into the church, and let it cut off one 
 great section of the communion, do you suppose 
 the residue will long hold together? If indeed 
 we were only lo be separated into two parts or 
 three, and then could respectively abide in peace 
 and quiet, the dismemberment might not be an 
 event so deeply to be deplored; nay, it would 
 perhaps be advantageous, that the two sections 
 of the church, between whom some unpleasant 
 bickerings have taken place, should, like Abra- 
 ham and Lot, agree (o part their flocks, to pre- 
 serve the general peace. But alas! it will' not 
 be so. Our churches are all on the Presbyterial 
 foundation. The heretical parties mutually de- 
 nounced, hfive it not in their power lo say to 
 each other: If you will go to the right, then we 
 will go to the left; or, if you prefer the left, then 
 we will depart to the right. They are chained 
 to the soil, and must continue to mingle togeth- 
 er. We shall preach and you will preach. One 
 will claim the church, and the other will claim 
 the church. The contention will grow sharper 
 and sharper; the love of property mingling now 
 in the strife, till there will be lawsuits in all di- 
 rections. And then where will our hearts be? 
 Where will be the blessed influences of the Holy 
 Spirit? Where will be the work of missions? 
 Where will be our societies for education? — 
 Where will be the rising institutions of the west, 
 when all our strength, and all oiSr property and 
 all our influence and power, have been wasted in 
 mutual litigations and mutual revilings? The 
 Devil will utter a scream of joy at a spectacle so 
 wortlij' of his most earnest aspirations. He had 
 begun to think that he must take leave of the 
 west, that he must abandon his long cherished 
 hope of gelling ulliniate possession of this great 
 and wide and fertile valley. But the news of 
 the Sacramental Host of God's own people 
 falling out and fighting with each oilier, will 
 heal his deadly wound and bid all his hopes 
 revive. No brethren; the Presbyterian church 
 cannot divide, and not delay the hour of her 
 victory for more than half a centurj'. If we 
 witness that lamentable day we must live and 
 die in the midst of contentions; and then 
 when we have sunk amidst the ruins of chris- 
 tian charity and the desolation of all our best 
 hopes, our children will come up and finish 
 the bad work which we have begun. They 
 too will prolong the fight; and when the battle 
 lias raged wilh mutual fury until It has spent its 
 sln.iigth and (he ficKls on every side are spread 
 over wilh desolation, both victors and vanquish- 
 ed will |)ausc in their work of ruin, will gnze 
 
 upon each other, will remember that they are 
 brethren, and will draw near and falling on each 
 other's necks, will confess their sins and the sins 
 of their fathers, and casting away the weapons of 
 their suicidal strife, will at length shake hands 
 and cease their broils, and late, late in compari- 
 son to what it might have been, will they begin 
 in sorrow, sin and shame, slowly and with pain 
 to build up that which they had spent half a cen- 
 tury in pulling down. 
 
 I have only one other word to address to you;^ 
 and that respects my views of the Confession ot 
 Faith and discipline of the Presbyterian church. 
 It was asked, in a letter read by Dr. Wilson, 
 who it was that got up a new Confession of Faith 
 in New England? 1 cannot answer the ques- 
 tion. But I can tell who put down that attempt. 
 The scheme was got up, I believe, in Connecti- 
 cut, and it was brought by the editor of the 
 Evangelist before the General Association of 
 Massachusetts, and I was the man who made 
 successful opposition to it in that Association. — 
 I never lifted a hand to revise or improve the 
 Confession of Faith; and I never shall do so, 
 while I hold the doctrines of natural ability as 
 true, and while I have found them useful in do- 
 ing away the notions of fatality and antinomian- 
 ism. I have never preached them, except for a 
 particular and definite purpose; just as a physi- 
 cian gives calomel to a patient in a fever; and 
 when the fever is broken, then administers bark 
 and tonics. I have not gone on preaching my 
 own views blindfold. But when I thought I had 
 preached the doctrine of natural ability long 
 enough to root out the opposite errors, then I 
 have brought up the doctrine of Tnoral depend- 
 ence. And I challenge any one to find an Ar- 
 minian in sentimcnt,in any of the congregations 
 to which it has been my privilege to minister. It 
 is impossible to preach either the doctrine of free 
 agency or dependence, prominently, for any 
 length of lime, and not have some men run away 
 with one or the other into error. Dr. Wilson, 
 for instance, preaches the doctrine of depend- 
 ence, and there are some who say that he is a 
 fatalist; and, if I am not misinformed, there are 
 some of his hearers who push his system into 
 absolute nntinomianism. Is Dr. Wilson to blame 
 for this? Not at all; unless. Indeed, he omits to 
 preach the doctrines which look the other way. 
 Both are true; and both must be preached; and 
 ifone only is held up tc view, the public mind 
 will infallibly get a wrong impression. The 
 proportion in which the two branches of the sys- 
 tem are lo be dwelt upon, must depend upon 
 circumstances. If a man goes where anlinom- 
 ianism is prevalent, he must preach the doctrine 
 of natural ability and free agency; on the con- 
 trary, if he is called to labor where arminian- 
 ism is rife, he must preach the doctrine of moral 
 dependence. Let a man advocate which ever 
 side of the controverey he chooses, and let him 
 do it ever so judiciously and wisely, there will 
 always be novices in the church who will run 
 
80 
 
 his sentiments into extremes and will be guilty 
 gf mucii extravagance. 
 
 I suppose that my opinions, wlien riglilly under- 
 stood, are very nearly the same as those of Dr. Wil- 
 son. Does he suppose that I am not sensible of (he 
 danger that must arise from carrying them to ex- 
 tremes? I am not insensible to it. I am as aware of 
 danger as he can be. There will always be men who 
 are incapable of discriminalion; men half educated, 
 full of zeal, but destitute of knowledge and prudence. 
 Luther was vexed almost to death with such, and so 
 am I, and so is Dr. Wilson. We should unite; we are 
 united. While I preach natural ability, I do and al- 
 ways will preach moral dependence; and if I find any 
 among my people who carry the doctrine to an extreme, 
 I put the sword of the Spirit upon them. And if oth- 
 ers carry matters to an extreme on the opposite side, 
 then I turn about and fight them too. That is the 
 stand which every minister is called to take. He is 
 placed upon his watch-tower, that he may guard 
 against the approach of danger, alike in every direc- 
 tion. I am not so under the influence of a theory as 
 to make every thing yield to that. My people know, 
 that lam not always banging their ears with the doc- 
 trine of natural ability. I alternate the two edges of 
 the sword, and smite as to me seems good; that I may 
 guard my people on every side, and train them up to 
 become perfect men in Christ Jesus. I think that in 
 some parts of the church, enough has been said on 
 the doctrine of natural ability. I thought so in Bos- 
 ton, and therefore I ceased from pressing those par- 
 ticular views. Dr. Woods said that I had rightly un- 
 derstood the type of the disease. 1 had done with the 
 calomel, and it was time for the bark. I am aware 
 that Asa Hand has said that the change was induced 
 by other considerations. But he mistakes my mo- 
 tives. I hold that we are not to take a whole apothe- 
 cary's shop of medicine and throw it upon the people 
 at once, but that we are to administer it judiciously 
 in measure according to the state of the pulse. A 
 stranger comes in, in the second stage of the disease, 
 and sees the physician administering tonics, and goes 
 away and makes a great outcry, and calls the doctor a 
 quack, because he administers bark in a fever. He 
 runs round among his acquaintance, and very sagely 
 predicts that the patient will die; he goes from house 
 to house, and stirs up an excitement, that he may get 
 the ignorant quack drummed out of town. And, after 
 all, what does he prove? why, that he himself is a 
 novice, and a busy-body, propagating slander. There 
 is a point where bark is needed; where laxatives must 
 cease and tonics begin, and it is the office of medical 
 science, to ascertain when that moment has arrived. 
 I am as much afraid of having the doctrine of free 
 agency in unskilful hands as Dr. Wilson is. I am as 
 much afraid of tearing up the foundations of the Con- 
 fession of Faith as he can be. If he will read my 
 thoughts upon creeds, he will find that I am as much 
 attached to creeds as lie is; and if he will but consent 
 to bear with me and try me for awhile, he will find me 
 standing by the Confession of Faith. Yes; it is an 
 instrument I would not tamper with for the world. I 
 have heard some say, that it might be amended, and 
 1 suppose, that in some of its passages, where the 
 phraseology has become obsolete, it possibly might 
 be. But the attempt to do it would be like begin- 
 ning to pull down an old house : once begin, and you 
 cannot stop. You may intend to do but little, yet in 
 the end the whole will come down. Just so there are 
 
 some people who think that the Bible ought to be 
 translated again; and it is possible that a very few 
 texts might he rendered better. But liappily for us, 
 the version we possess, was made at a period when 
 the English language was in its vigor and perfection. 
 It is just so with our Confession of Faith. We have 
 got as much truth in it as we can hope to comprise in 
 any one work of uninspired men. Let us be content- 
 ed. If there are a few points in its philosophy to 
 which some cannot agree, still, the increase and pros- 
 perity of our church, under such a union, proves that 
 we need not, on account of these differences, break 
 the bond of brotherhood. Let us hold on to what we 
 have got. Let us strengthen the things that remain. 
 If there is any danger of running into, extremes, that 
 danger is induced mainly by controversy. Two com- 
 batants always, and of necessity, push each other into 
 opposite extremes; while, meantime, all the filling up, 
 all the middle ground, where lies the substance and 
 life blood of the truth, is forsaken and left unoccu- 
 pied and the gladiators, in their zeal, become ultra on 
 both sides. Let the church divide, and we may find 
 too much of free agency on the one side, and too 
 much of moral inability on the other. The safety of 
 the church lies in retaining both; the safely of the 
 church calls alike for the balancing influence of all her 
 children; for Dr., Wilson and for me. He may be 
 useful to keep me straight, and prevent my preaching 
 men into arminianism ; and I may be just as necessa- 
 ry to keep him right, and to prevent his preaching men 
 into antinomianism. I am therefore not without hope, 
 that, this very discussion, in its consequences, will 
 prove to have been a blessing from God ; that after 
 this mutual explanation and comparison of our respec- 
 tive views, we shall see eye to eye. The febrile ac- 
 tion which at present excites the church, if it does not 
 come to a crisis now, may soon have gone by; and I 
 hope that before we pass the rubicon, ray brother will 
 remember the truth of the motto — ' United we stand, 
 divided we fall.' Division must, without fail, aggra- 
 vate the ultra tendencies of both parties. The 
 church is better constituted for powerful action in a 
 united state, than she possibly can be, subdivided into 
 little fragments. If men think of breaking her unity, 
 with the prospect of thereby coming to a greater 
 agreement of sentiment, they will find that, instead 
 of seeing eye to eye, from such a division, each heart 
 will become more and more ultra and heretical, and the 
 mighty beating of the heart, and the mighty move- 
 ments of the arm, by which she might otherwise have 
 advanced to victory, will. then be gone forever. May 
 God avert so great a calamity. 
 
 One word more, in respect to my brother Wilson. 
 I love him. I have, indeed, been not a little grieved 
 at some things which he has done, and which,! be- 
 lieve, in his cooler moments he would not do. I am 
 aware that the world say. Dr. Wilson and 1 have been 
 quarreling. It is not true. It is a lie ; and it comes 
 from the proper place of lies. No wound has been 
 made upon ray heart; and if I have, unwittingly, in- 
 flicted a wound upon his, I here say that I am sorry 
 for it. I may have said wrong things or weak things; 
 and if I have, I again declare that I am sorry. I have 
 no prejudice to gratify; and I hope there exists be- 
 tween us no foolish ambition as to which shall be the 
 greatest. It is possible that my brother, from the fact 
 of having been a leader all his lifetime, may feel 
 some pain under the apprehension of a divided em- 
 pire. I trust there will be nothing of that kind in his 
 
81 
 
 bosom. That day lliaf Dr. Wilson can walk wiili mo 
 and bear willi me, he may take, with joy, so far as [ 
 am concerned, the entire lead. He may increase, and 
 1 wish he would; and I will be conlonl to dtcreasc. I 
 have another sphere in which to move, and I am will- 
 ing to come and be his subaltern. When he says go, 
 I will go. He may be commander-in-chief, and I 
 will consent to be a corporal. lam content, in any 
 capacity, to throw myself in the brcacii. But let 
 there be no controversy between us, who shall be 
 greatest. I hope we neither of us desire lo be great 
 in anydiing, except it be in doing boih of us as much 
 work for God p.s we can do, in our day and genera- 
 tion. 
 
 The following^ additional authorities were put in by 
 Dr. Beecher at the close of his defence, by consent of 
 Dr. Wilson and the Presbytery : 
 
 Testimonies to be added to the list of extracts, in 
 continuation, on the subject of man's natural ability. 
 
 1. Witsms. — 'He [Adam] sinned with judgment and 
 will, to which faculties liberty, as opposed to com- 
 pulsion, is so peculiar, nay essentia], that there can 
 be neither judgment nor will, unless they be free.' — 
 Vol. i. p. 193. 
 
 The Andovor Declaration, subscribed by the pro- 
 fessors : 
 
 Free Agency and Natural Ability. — 'That 
 God's decrees perfectly consist with human liberty, 
 God's universal agency with the agency of man, and 
 man's dependence with his accountability ^ That 
 man has understanding and corporeal strength to do 
 all that God requires of him; so that nothing but the 
 sinner's aversion to holiness prevents his salvation. — 
 Laws, p. 9. 
 
 Moral Inability. — ' That being morally incapable 
 of recovering the image of his Creator, which was lost 
 in Adam, every man is justly exposed to eternal dam- 
 nation. Laws, page 7. 
 
 Dr. Beecher also refers lo Dr. Tyler: see National 
 Preacher, vol. ii. pp.161, 163 — Dr. Woods' Letters 
 to Ware, ch. v. p. 183 — Dr. Woods' lliird letter lo Dr. 
 Beecher: Spirit of (he Pilgrims, vol. vi. No. l.pp. 19 
 — 2'i, and to tho extracts in the note at the end of 
 Dr. Beccher's Sermons on Free Agency and Depend- 
 ence. 
 
 Tuesday, June \Glh. — After a preliminary con- 
 versation, in wiiich the order of speaking was 
 agreed upon, 
 
 Dr. Wilson rose in rejoinder, and addressed 
 the Presbytery nearly as follow?: 
 
 We are told by an inspired apostle, that 
 'tribulation workctli patience;' and the injunc- 
 tion delivered (o us by the same authority, is to 
 'let patience have her j)erfcct work.' I there- 
 fore besecc:li you to hear me patiently. 
 
 I think 1 can say, witli all good conscience, 
 that 1 reciprocate the kindness, the courtesy, and 
 the cxiiiblion of fraternal feeling made by my 
 opponent. But there are some things in which 
 he and I so materially dilFcr, that I cannot, as 
 yet, shake hands, as he supposed; and there are 
 some methods in his pnictical manner of exhibit- 
 ing his views which it is impossible for me to 
 imitate. I cannot, in such a momentous trial as 
 this, address my language to the popular car; 
 nor can I indulge in tli;it wit and pleasantry 
 which is calculated to cxeite a smile; no more 
 can I pretend lo follow him in all those wan- 
 derings, and turnings, and eccentricities, which 
 
 have so abundantly appeared in the course of 
 his defence. IMy object will be, in the fear of 
 God. to address my argument to this court; to 
 take up the leading and prominent points in dis- 
 cussion, leaving othersubordinate and irrelevant 
 matters (as they ought always to have been left) 
 out of the question. 
 
 The introduction of new testimony, after the 
 prosecutor had closed his arguments, was, I be- 
 lieve, a nsw measure in judicial proceedings. 
 Men, who act rationally, act from forethought 
 and design. I impute no improper motive to 
 the court. It was kindness and courtesy on 
 your part; and I did not object to it, because I 
 wanted to know the truth of the whole case. — 
 But I may ask, what was the motive of Dr. Bee- 
 cher in presenting new evidence, alter I had 
 concluded my opening argument, but to prevent 
 that argument from making the impression it 
 was otherwise likely to make on the minds of 
 this Presbytery? No human eye can look into 
 his breast; but we are constrained to judge of 
 men's motives from their conduct. Hence I 
 am constrained to infer that this manoeuvre was 
 desiiined for popular effect. 
 
 [The Moderator here interposed, and observ- 
 ed, that the introduction of new testimony had 
 been allowed by the court, in consequence of the 
 prosecutor's having, in his opening speech in 
 support of the charges tabled, introduced new 
 matter, not contained in the charges.] 
 
 Well, let that pass. lam always willing to 
 receive proper information; and when I have 
 entertained an unfavorable impression touching 
 the conduct of any individual, lam always glad 
 to have it removed. At all events, the introduc- 
 tion of this new testimony, at the opening of 
 the defence, prevented that scrutiny and that 
 application of the testimony which might have 
 been made by the prosecutor; and it opetied an 
 ample field to the defendant for popular de- 
 clamation. And how readily and extensively he 
 occupied that field, you all know. 
 
 I had entertained a hope that no reply to the 
 defence would have become necessary, but this 
 untimely introduction of new evidence dispelled 
 the pleasing expectation. And I deeply regret 
 that so much time has been wasted by the in- 
 troduction of matter entirely foreign from the 
 merits of this cause. In this I am innocent. — 
 What made it necessary for me to read extracts 
 from the Edwardean and the Volunteer? It 
 was Dr. Bei^eher's boast of the amount of ec- 
 clesiastical capital he had imported from New 
 England; and that boast m;idc to cast odium on 
 me, aslhoughl had been the cause of all his 
 difficulties. Who made it necessary for me to 
 read portions of the Pcrfcclionisl? It was Dr. 
 Bcecher's call for Mr. Brainerd's testimony re- 
 specting the faith of that denomination. Who 
 gave me the right to read an anonymous letter 
 respectiiiL; the doings of the third Presbytery of 
 New York? It was Dr. Beccher's indiscreet 
 use of a part of that document. On whose mo- 
 
8-2 
 
 tlon were two hours consumed, in reading ser- 
 mons, when a {ew moments' examination were 
 sufficient to ascertain whether the propositions 
 presented by me were correctly extracted? — 
 But I forbear, in order to make a passing re- 
 mark on the letters which have been read and 
 the testimony taken since I closed my argument. 
 And, 
 
 1. The letter written by Dr. Green, in 1828. 
 'On this I have only to say, humanum est errare 
 — no man liveth and sinneth not. Dr. Green, 
 in writing that letter, did wrong. 
 
 2. The letter of Dr. Miller. This letter is 
 truly characteristic. It exhibits the urbanity of 
 Dr. Miller to the life. It proves the courtesy 
 ■and kindness of that distinguished man, who wrote 
 letters to Presbyterians proving that some of our 
 ministers were guilty of offences in the church, 
 as heinous as swindling, forgery and perjury, in 
 civil society; and at the same time protesting 
 against a separation from such men. 
 
 3 A letter, to which my name is attached as 
 chairman of the executive committee of Lane 
 Seminary, inviting Dr. Beecher to come to Cin- 
 cinnati, in which I bore as much responsibility 
 as the Moderator of this Presbytery bears when 
 he signs, officially, the minutes of your business 
 in which he has no vote, and whjcla business 
 may have been transacted contrary to his wish- 
 es. And for what purposes were these letters 
 /introduced? To cast unmerited odium upon 
 jne-, to prop up Dr. Beecher's fallen reputation, 
 ahu to prove that if he deserves to be suspended 
 for heresy in 1835, Dr. Green and Miller ought 
 to be suspended for inviting him to Philadelphia 
 in 1828, nine years ago; [the Moderator correct- 
 ed Dr. W., it was seven years;] and only one 
 year after Dr. Beecher commenced his headlong 
 course in new divinity and new measures. Could 
 the writers of these letters have foreseen what 
 Dr. Beecher would be, and with what class of 
 men he would stand associated in 1835? And 
 is it logical to say, that if he deserves suspension 
 nowi they also deserved the same punishment? 
 Yes, sir, this is Dr. Beecher's logic! 
 
 Leaving the letters, 1 will make a remark on 
 Mr. Bullard's testimony. 
 
 He knows that Unitarians hated Dr. Beech- 
 er, though they claimed the greater part of 
 bis select system ns their own. He had a 
 long and extended acquaintance with minis- 
 ters in New England, but never heard of the 
 sermon called ' the faith once delivered to the 
 saints' more than of any other sermon; he 
 knows of Dr. Beecher's pre-eminent fame in 
 New England, but was not there to witness 
 his approbation of Dr. Taylor and Mr. Fin- 
 ney; he knows not whether Dr. Beecher's 
 sermon on ' the faith once delivered to the saints,' 
 parts of which have been read on this trial, 
 resembles the creed of the Doctor's church 
 in B»stoi), though he was a member of that 
 church for five years. Surely j'ou should re- 
 ceive with great caution the testimony of a wit- 
 
 ness who knows so much, and knows so little! 
 One thing he knows: the Calvinism of New 
 England is the being opposed to Unitarianisiij. 
 I do not mean to impeach his veracity; but I 
 repeat, that the testimony of a witness needs 
 close examination, who knows so much, and 
 yet knows so little. 
 
 [Mr. Bullard here interposed, and called fop 
 the reading of his testimony: and it was read 
 over accordingly, by the clerk. See ante, 
 page 52.] 
 
 Mr. Bullard complained that Dr. W. had 
 misrepresented his testimony, in saying that Mr, 
 B. had not been in New England to witness Dr. 
 Beecher's approbation of Dr. Taylor and Mr. 
 Finney. He had been in New England at 
 the time referred to, and yet bad not witnessed 
 it. 
 
 Dr. Wilson explained. He had understood 
 so as the examination proceeded; but, in the 
 reading of testimony, he perceived no such fact 
 was recorded. 
 
 The Moderator stated that Dr. Wilson had 
 fallen into another important mistake. The 
 terms Calvinistic and Orthodox were not synony- 
 mous in New England. The term Orthodox 
 was used in a general sense, as distinguishing 
 all who rejected and opposed the tenets of the 
 Unitarians. 
 
 Dr. Wilson repeated his disclaimer of all imputa- 
 tion on the veracity of the witness. But he woulH 
 ask of the court, what has all this array of untimely 
 testimony to do with this cause? Nothing, absolute- 
 ly nothing. Is it admissible in a civil court, when a 
 man is charged with larceny, for him to introduce tes- 
 timony to sliow that nine years ago he was reputed by 
 his neighbors to be an honest man? Is it right, in an 
 ecclesiastical court, when a man is charged with 
 heresy, for him to prove that in Massachusetts, five 
 years ago, he was reputed orthodox, by men who 
 have no public creed as a bond of union; and that 
 seven years ago he was urged to come to Philadel- 
 phia by orthodox men in the Presbyterian church! 
 Can it be possible that this court will suffer them- 
 selves tobe deluded by such management? I appre- 
 ciate your kindness, in giving indulgence to an accu- 
 sed brother, who ought always to be treated with 
 tenderness; but, sir, you have too much good sense 
 and stern integrity, to suffer your judgment to l>e 
 warped by such testimnoy. The question is not 
 what Dr. Beecher was in New England, but what he 
 is in Cincinnati, and what he is in Lane Seminary? 
 He tells you that he has taught the same doctrines 
 in the Second church, which 1 have proved from his 
 sermons; he declares that on tliese points his mind 
 is made up, his principles are immutable ; that he holds 
 llie same tenets this day as he has done from his out- 
 set in the ministry. It is true that I had something 
 to do with Dr. Beecher's coming to Lane Seminary; 
 but, though 1 bore some part in that responsibility, 
 the same part in it as the Moderator of this Presby- 
 tery bears when he signs the minutes of its pro- 
 ceedings, yet all I did in that matter has nothing to 
 do with this cause. For what purpose were these 
 letters produced? Evidently with a view to turn 
 away the attention of the court from the real merits 
 of the ca^ ; to matters which are not connected with 
 
83 
 
 it: as though what Dr. Green, or Dr. Miller, aad 
 myself may have done or'said, years ago, was to be a 
 bar to any interference with Dr. Beecher's doctrines 
 at this day, and must forever seal my lips from speak- 
 ing a word in the character of a prosecutor. They 
 are produced with a view to represent me as incon- 
 sislent and wicked, in first extending to a stranger 
 the band of welcome, and then, when he comes, 
 meeting him with a back stroke. 
 
 Dr. Beecher here said, Did I understad Dr. Wil- 
 son as meaning to convey the idea that he had no hand 
 in giving me a call to Lane Seminary? 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied, I said I had the same responsi- 
 bility in respect to that call that the Moderator of this 
 Presbytery has when he signs its proceedings in his 
 official character. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. Did Dr. Wilson give no vote? 
 
 Dr. Wilson. I might have given some expression 
 of opinion, but I gave no vote. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. In the consultation held by the Di- 
 rectors previous to the act of giving me tlie invitation, 
 did Dr. Wilson take no part and give no opinion in 
 favor of that measure? 
 
 Dr. Wilson. I said on that occasion ihat if Dr- 
 Beecher liad changed his views from what they had 
 been in 1817, and could adopt the Confession of Failh 
 in the Presbyterian Church, I considered him as fit 
 and as able a man as the Board could get for the 
 place, and that I should cordially acquiesce in calling 
 him. I now proceed to inquire what is the benefit of 
 previous good character to a man when put on his 
 trial for treason? The ques^tion is not what the man 
 once was; but what has he since said and done? If 
 he be convicted, former good character may be plead 
 as a ground of pardon when he petitions for clemency. 
 Dr. Beecl)er complains that I did not give him infor- 
 mation when I changed my mind respecting his 
 coming to Lane Seminary. Sir, I never changed my 
 mind on that subject. I always said, previous to his 
 visit to the west, that from what I knew of his theo- 
 logical opinions in 1S17, I was confident ho never 
 would adopt the standards of the Presbyterian 
 Church. I believed him to be an honest man, who 
 would never adopt a creed which he did not believe, 
 for the sake of a seat in Lane Seminary. But when 
 he entered the Presbyterian Ciiurch, through the 3d 
 Presbytery of New York, I then was thoroughly con- 
 vinced of my mistake. 1 found to my sad disappoint- 
 ment and great grief thnt I had formed an erroneous 
 opinion of the man. He complains, further, that I 
 would never permit him to explain to mo his views. 
 It is true that I declined hearing his explanations in 
 private; because his doctri.ies were published, and no 
 private explanation could remove the offence given, 
 or prevent the injury done to the church. Besid -s, 
 sir, I did not need explanation. Nothing but public 
 and published recantation could heal the wound he 
 had inflicted on the cause of truth. I would never 
 make a man an offender for a word, and especially if 
 that word be uttered in the ardor of debate; but 
 when ii man writes and prints dangerous error, and 
 more especially if he does it once and again, I can 
 listen to no explanation. He must publicly recall it 
 or bear the consequences. And it is not likely that a 
 man will recant who has persevered in error till his 
 head has been frosted with the snows of sixty winters. 
 Besides, Dr. Beecher has openly declared, in your 
 presence, that he has not changed his sentiments: 
 that ho never shall change them; that he will go to 
 
 Ibejudgment bar with them, and there stand the de* 
 cision of the Judge whether they are false or true. 
 
 Dr. Beecher has expressed another complaint. He 
 says he has been made ' the subject of suspicion.' 
 
 'And who can stand before suspicion?' ' The fe- 
 male character and the character of a minister both 
 wither under the breath of suspicion,' Sir, no lady, 
 no gentleman, no minister, who speaks and acts dis- 
 creetly, can easily be brought under suspicion. If the 
 breath of calumny tarnishes -the upright, the impres- 
 sion must be transient. If Dr. B. has been made the 
 subject of suspicion, he has been made so by his own 
 continued vagaries. His theological wanderings 
 have surprised and perplexed his friends, and broken 
 the peace of the church. Bat I deny that there is 
 any suspicion about it in the west. If there ever was 
 a time in New England when he was a subject of 
 mere suspicion, that period passed away long before 
 he crossed the Alleghany. But in another pur! of his 
 defence he assumes a lofty note. He always lived 
 above suspicion, and came among us as a peace- 
 maker. The Cincinnati Journal was speaking out, 
 but he said hush, and it was silent. I knew not before 
 by whose almighty fiat the motto of 'answer him 
 not,' was brought into existence. It is well, sir, for 
 men to be silent when they have no answer to give. 
 The Lord has promised to give his people ' a mouth 
 and wisdom which their adversaries cannot gainsay 
 or resist' — and then they will either roar like lions, 
 or assume the appearance of angels of light. Dr. 
 Beecher has pursued the latter policy, and presents 
 himself before yuu in the lovely attributes of a perse- 
 cuted peace-maker! He excites your sympathies by 
 all that is lovely in character and venerable in age — 
 he moves your admiration by his wonderful success. 
 But how sudden and un xpected are transformations? 
 How soon did the pacificator turn on me as a bitter 
 accuser. This, I suppose, is the quid pro quo accor- 
 ding to the law of retaliation. 
 
 His complaints and peace-making, and re- 
 criminations being ended, the Dr. advances to 
 the subject before you — and says: ' All these 
 charges against me turn on a single point, name- 
 ly, here?}-. If I am not guilty of heresy I am no 
 slanderer, no hypocrite.' This, sir, is exactly so.. 
 Here, for once, Dr. Beecher, and I can shake 
 hands. ' We are near together.' I perfectly 
 coincide with him in this — that i( the charges of 
 false doctrine be unsustained, the others must 
 fall of course. 
 
 In his attempt to vindicate his doctrines and 
 show their agreement with the standards of the 
 church, he advertises you of his confidence that 
 the clearness of his argument, would be such as 
 not only to convert to his own faith every old- 
 school man in the court, but even me. 'Yes,' 
 said he, ' I am confident I shall convince Dr. 
 Wilson, and I have told him so.' Yes, Modera- 
 tor, Dr. Beecher in our private intercourse said 
 to me, 'I have no doubt that vrhen I make my 
 defence, you will be convinced that I am right 
 and you are wrong.' But if he had convinced 
 me, would that have broight us together? Yes, 
 Moderator, that would bring us together at once. 
 If I am wrong, and am made to see my error, I 
 will at once confess it before God and man. 
 God forbid that I should seal my lips in siloncfe. 
 
84 
 
 I would say before the whole v/orW : I have 
 been wrong, and I mean to do better. And I 
 then pledged myself, that if such conviction 
 should be produced, I would make a public con- 
 fession. As I am not contending for victory 
 over Dr. Beecher, but for what 1 believe to be 
 the truth of God, this expression of confidence 
 on his part so far from nerving me with resis- 
 tance, opened my eyes, and ears, and heart to 
 all he has said; and after ail, sir, so far as I am 
 concerned, he will have to take up the lamenta- 
 tion, 'I have labored in vain, and spent my 
 strength for nought.' 
 
 The first position he took in the argument 
 ■was this: that in the adoption of creeds, we must 
 not expect exact verbal agreement in our ex- 
 planations. And he imputes to me a sentiment 
 which I never held nor expressed, viz: 'that I 
 believed the standards of our church as far as 
 they are consistent with the Word of God.' 
 No, Moderator; I never said so. I might adopt 
 the Alcoran itself, or any other book, whatever, 
 with such a limitation. I contended against 
 this principle in our contest with the Cumberland 
 Presbyterians; and if Dr. Beecher understood 
 me as advocating any such idea, he is entirely 
 mistaken. 
 
 Dr. Beecher said there had been some ex- 
 pressions used by Dr. Wilson in his opening 
 speech, which he understood as amounting to 
 such a position; and he marvelled to hear 
 such a doctrine proceed from the lips of his 
 brother. 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied that he utterly disavowed 
 any such sentiment: and if anything that looked 
 like it had fallen from his lips it must have been 
 a lapsus linguEe. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. So I said, at the time. 
 
 Dr. Wilson resumed: 
 
 What I did mean to advance was, that I re- 
 ceived our standards because I believed, that as 
 far as they went, they were consistent wiih the 
 Word of God. Yet 1 do not believe, with Dr. 
 Beecher, that 'they contain the truth, ihe whole 
 truth, and nothing but the truth.' For there are 
 some things in the Word of God of which they 
 say nothing: for example the subjects of the 
 priesthood of Meichizedec, the millennium, and 
 various others of a like kind. It leaves them as 
 matters of inquiry, and as debateable ground. 
 When it speaks it declares that which, though 
 it may be debateable ground between us and 
 the Methodists, or us and the Episcopalians, is 
 no longer debateable ground among Presbyter- 
 ians: unless indeed some choose to risk the dis- 
 traction of the church by the employment of 
 novel phrases in divinity. Lest I* should be 
 considered more rigid than I really am, let me 
 here explain. I care not about exact verbal 
 agrcement,if he can show me that we mean the 
 same thing. I do not, of course, expect that 
 when another man preaches a sermon on the 
 same doctrine, he should use the very same 
 words with a sermon of mv own. And it would 
 
 be equally an absurdity to expect that a man in 
 preaching should say nothing beyond the very 
 words of Scripture, or the very expressions of the 
 Confession of Faith: but it is not absurd to ex- 
 pect that he should use language that is intelli- 
 gible. We have been told by Dr. B. that the 
 English language was at its perfection in the 
 days of King James, when our version of the 
 Scriptures was made: cannot we then use the 
 same terms that were used then, so that it may 
 be evident that we mean the same thing? Till 
 Dr. Beecher shall have proved that 'utterly dis- 
 abled' means full ability — that 'a corrupt nature' 
 means a nature neither holy nor unholy — that 
 'dead in sin' and 'wholly defiled in all the facuU 
 ties and parts of soul and body' means that there 
 is nothing wrong but the will — that 'utterly in- 
 disposed' means plenary powers; I must dissent 
 from his exposition, for we are the poles apart. 
 Or rather, there is an impassable gulf between 
 us: not, I hope, that great gulf which separated 
 the rich man and Lazarus; but there is a gulf 
 over which no explanation hitherto given has 
 succeeded in throwing a bridge, and which 
 nothing can fill up, so that Dr. B. and I can 
 come and shake hands over it, but Recanta- 
 tion. 
 
 And now as to the exposition of language. 
 Dr. Beecher was very lively in his remarks upon 
 my producing Johnson and Walker as authority 
 here: and tells us that the resort ought to have 
 been to a theological dictionary, and to the usus 
 loquendi at the time the Confession of Faith was 
 compiled. But sir, did I bring Johnson and 
 Walker to prove the meaning of terms used in 
 the Confession? No sir: I brought these author- 
 ities to prove the true meaning of the word 
 'slander,' and I brought higher authority than 
 either or both of them'', I brought the Bible to 
 show that in the sense of that book slander means 
 the 'bringing up of an evil report.' 
 
 But Dr. Beecher charges me with, being too 
 rigid in the manner in which I speak of con- 
 formity to the terms of the Confession of Faith; 
 and he infers that I must be a Catholic because 
 I will have every body to subscribe to the Con- 
 fession without explanation. 
 
 [Here the Moderator reminded Dr. Wilson 
 that Dr. Beecher had said he did not mean to 
 make this charge personally on Dr. Wilson; but 
 inferred it from his argument.] 
 
 Dr. Beecher observed that he had expressly 
 disclaimed applying the sentiment to Dr. Wilson, 
 although his language would bear such an in- 
 ference. 
 
 Dr. Wilson resumed : well, be it so. I now say that 
 the same argument might be urged against the Pro- 
 testant claim to receive the Bible without the church's 
 explanation of it. Dr. Beecher says the Confession 
 of Faith must be explained. I say that it must be 
 received according to the obvious sense and meaning 
 of its words as they are understood by one who speaks 
 English — in their plain, obvious meaning. He says 
 no; they contain many technics which must be in- 
 terpreted according to the ustis loquendi at the time 
 
85 
 
 it was written J with aregafd to the existing controver- 
 sies and the reigaiog philosophy: and be has accord- 
 ingly gone back To Augustine, and explained the Con- 
 fession according to the force of technical terms at 
 that day. If this be true, then the Confession must 
 be a sealed book to the common people, until it shall 
 be explained by the priest: and so the body of believ- 
 ers will have no more to do with the Confession in ihe 
 Presbyterian church, than lliey have to do with the 
 Bible in the church of Rome. Now which of us is 
 the Catholic? 
 
 Dr. Bcecher, wliile explaining his sense of the Cun- 
 fession, complains that n body can understand him. 
 He says he has tried five different times to explain 
 his notions of natural abilily, and has always been mis- 
 understood, and he then very patiently tried it tlie 
 sixth time. 
 
 [Dr. Bcecher explained. It was not his notions of 
 natural abilily, but his sentiments as to the right of 
 private construction wiiich he had five several times 
 tried to make Dr. Wilaon understand, but without 
 success.] 
 
 Well: there is another point on which his success 
 is no betleri and in respect lo which it may be well 
 enough to reftesl) his memory. He soys that I have 
 not understood the position betakes on the subject of 
 free agency and natural ability; what he means Ijy tlie 
 natural ability of man as a free cigont to put forth right 
 spiritual exercises. 
 
 By natural abilily, I moan what the law of God 
 means, when it says, Thou shall love the Lord thy 
 <jod with all lliy HEART, and mind, and soul, and 
 STKEKCin; and what the gospel mean.", when, in the 
 form, of a parable, it declares, that lie gave to every 
 man according to his several abililij, and that the 
 moral obligation to irnjirove, corresponded with the 
 talents given, and the abilily possessed fur their im- 
 provement. 
 
 I mean, that God docs not reap where he has not 
 sowed, or gather where he has not strewed; but re- 
 quires according to what a man halh, and not accord- 
 ing to what he hath not — much of him lo whom much 
 is given, and little of him to whom little is given. 
 
 I mean, that God knows how to create intelligent 
 beings with such powers of mind, that being uplicld 
 and placed under law, they are so capable of obedience 
 as (o create perfect and infinite obligation to obey; 
 tlie violation of which brings upon the sinner a just 
 condemnation to eternal death. 
 
 I mean, what the Confessions of Faith of the Pres- 
 byterian and Congregational churches mean, that God 
 hath endued Ihe will of man with that natural liberty 
 and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither 
 forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature de- 
 termined lo do good or evil;' so that by his decrees, 
 'neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offer- 
 ed to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or 
 contingency of second causes taken away, but rather 
 established.' — Dr. Bcech(r''s Sermon on Dependence 
 and Free Agency, pp. 14, 15. 
 
 Now, after all this, 1 never yet have been able to 
 learn what iie means by natural ability. la other 
 places Jio speaks about bones and sinews; in others of 
 uiiderstanding, memory, ond other faculties of the 
 mind. I therefore frankly confess that I do not know 
 what Dr. Beecher docs mean by natural ability. 
 
 In laying down rules for construction, the Doctor 
 says that we must never give to any instrument such 
 an interpretation as will cause it to contradict itself, 
 if Ihe words will hear such a one aa will make its 
 
 parts consistent. Here we do not differ. It would 
 certainly be unjust and unfair so to do. In advancing 
 his argument in support of natural ability, he endea- 
 vors to establish it by an exposition of the Confession 
 of Faith. In replying to what he has said, I shall not 
 take up his topics of argument in the exact order in 
 which he advanced them, but in such as shall best 
 suit my own purpose. 
 
 Presbytery here took a recess until the after- 
 noon. 
 
 Tuesday Afternoon. — Dr. Wilson resumed: I am 
 now at the place where Dr. Beecher first touched the 
 merits of the real question between him and myself; 
 and that was when he undertook to prove that the 
 Cliristian church in all ages believed and taught as he 
 does. But before I proceed to reply, let me stop to 
 notice a remark which fell from him after he had con- 
 cluded his argument. Could he show that the church 
 now believes and always has believed as he teaches, 
 it would of course acquit him not only of contradicting 
 our standards, but also of having brought up an evil 
 report upon the church. The remark was this: That 
 if he li.id misrepresented the o[)inions of Ihe fathers, 
 it still would not be slander, because a man cannot be 
 guiliy of slandur in respLCl to those who are slumber- 
 ing in the grave. I, sir, am of a different opinion. 
 Whclhersuch an offence be actionable, or not, in a 
 civil court, I am not lawyer enough to say; nor do I 
 know of any adjudicated case which will settle that 
 qucslion. I cr.n only slate my own view of the mat- 
 ter; and for myself, 1 have always considered it, and I 
 do now consider it, a much greater crime to slander 
 those who have gone into eternity, than those who are 
 still in ihe confines of time, and who are able to vin- 
 dicate their own good name from aspersion. If the 
 departed were true christians, ihey are not dead; God 
 is not the God of the dead, but of ihe living; they are 
 still II. embers of Christ's mystical body: and if an evil 
 report is broiiglit upon ihem, it is as if brought against 
 Him, their living Head, who has burst the grave, and 
 gone upon high, never lo be confined within its cold 
 limits again. But he says Ihat if slanlerof the dead 
 were an actionable offence, slill, as his statement 
 rested on historical nuthority, it might be only 
 an error, nnd that would be Hollander. To this 
 I reply, that when an individual occupies such a 
 station as Dr. Beecher doe?, it is not for him to 
 plead ignorance a? to a matter of this kind; and 
 although he has here admitted that on a .re- 
 examination of the evidence he is ready to con- 
 fess that in what he staled in his sermon as to 
 the darkness of the church before the day? of 
 Edwards he was mistaken, and that he is now 
 willing to retract it; yet this does not cover the 
 case; because a portion of his sermon relates not 
 to those who lived before Edwards' dfiy, but fixes 
 the same slander upon the living: for it docs 
 assume that there arc, at this day, and not a few, 
 who preach the doctrine he opposes, nnd do 
 thereby hinder the onward progress of the car 
 of the gospel and do more than any others to 
 eclipse the Sun of Righteousness. ' Hence, 
 though slander against the dead be not action- 
 able, still there remains slander against the 
 living lo be retracted, unless he can make good 
 his assertion that the church of God in all 
 ages has held the doctrine he delights to main- 
 tain. 
 
86 
 
 His first argument to show that the church in 
 every age has held these notions, is drawn from 
 the universal consciousness of men. This was 
 not placed first in order by Dr. B., but it is so 
 placed by me. 
 
 Dr. Beecher here inquired whether Dr. Wil- 
 son meant to . say that this was one of the argu- 
 ments employed by Dr. B. to show what had 
 been the general belief of the church? 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied that he had so understood 
 it. 
 
 Dr. Beecher said that what he had advanced 
 respecting the universal consciousness of man- 
 kihd'as to their own natural freedom and ability, 
 had nothing to do with that part of the argument 
 which rested on the testimony of the church in 
 all ages-; but had been applied in support of 
 Dr. B.'5 construction of the Confession of 
 Faith. 
 
 Dr. Wilson, well: then I will pass over that 
 point. 
 
 I will now proceed to the testimony from the 
 Fathers. Dr. Beecher introduced quotations 
 from the writings of the early Fathers to show 
 that they held the Natural Ability of man in the 
 sense he holds it. But that is not the question at 
 issue. We are not settling what the Fathers 
 held : the question at issue is, what did the church 
 hold? from the days when inspiration closed 
 with the sealed lips of the last of the Apostles, 
 down to the times of Augustine, a period of four 
 centuries. Any one who reads the history of the 
 church during that period, will be puzzled to 
 find any Creed or Confession of Faith whatever, 
 saving the brief Creed of Athanasius in respect 
 to the Trinity, in his conflict with Arius. For 
 fourhundred years the church, so far as we know, 
 had no Creed but the Bible, and we must look 
 there alone to find what doctrines she held. It 
 was when the controversy arose as to what the 
 Bible meant on the subject of the Trinity that 
 a Creed was for the first time composed: and it 
 respected that point alone. The sentiments 
 therefore of Justin Martyr, Tatius, Ireneus, 
 Origen, Cyprian, and the rest have nothing to do 
 With the matter. The sentiments of these 
 writers are not exhibited as the Creed of the 
 church. Their writings show only what were 
 their own individual opinions, as urged by them 
 in their controversy against the Pagan philoso- 
 phers or other errorists of their times. And be- 
 sides,' they were then considered, and have been 
 ever since, as speculative and unsound men. 
 
 Let me suppose a case. Let me imagine that 
 from this day, for the space of four succeeding 
 centuries, all Creeds and Confessions of the 
 church were blotted out; and that then there 
 should elaspe a further period of eleven or twelve 
 centuries more: so that for sixteen or seventeen 
 hundred years not a vestige of any public sym- 
 TdoI of the christian faith was visible. And then, 
 after this long dark interval of more than a thou- 
 sand years, a presbytery should sit among our 
 posterity, and should with such lights as they 
 
 had, endeavor to discover from the writings of 
 the present day what was the Creed of the 
 church during the first fourhundred years after 
 us. And that they should take up as the promi- 
 nent writers of the age the works of Ware, 
 Emmons, Wesley, B. W. Stone, A. Campbell, 
 Taylor, Dwight, Edwards, and Dr. Beecher, 
 and Dr. Bishop; I say that if they settled the 
 question according to the writings of these men, 
 they would settle it wrong: I do not indeed say, 
 that these writers are wrong in all things, or 
 that their writings do not contain much truth; 
 but I do say that they would be a false criter- 
 ion of what is the faith of the Presbyterian 
 church. And no more can we, from consulting 
 the writings of the early fathers, mutilated, 
 translated and what not, as they are, decide 
 what was the faith of the Universal church 
 during the first four centuries. 
 
 I will now show what is the historical evidence 
 concerning the writers of that age. 
 
 Extracts from Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers. 
 
 Cave, speaking of Origen, says: 'For though a- 
 bounding wilh words, he was always allowed to be 
 eloquent, for which Vincentius highly commends him, 
 afRiming his phrase to be so sweet, pleasant, and de- 
 lightful, that there seemed to him to have dropped 
 not woids so much as honey from his mouth. 
 
 But that, alas, which has cast clouds and darkness 
 upon all his glory, and buried so much of his fame in 
 ignominy and reproach, is the dangerous and unsound 
 doclrines and principles which are scattered up and 
 down his writings, for which almost aJI ages, without 
 any reverence to his parts, learning, piety, and ihe 
 judgment of the wisest and best of times he lived in, 
 have without any mercy, pronounced him heretic, and 
 his sentiments and speculations rash, absurd, perni- 
 cious, blasphemous, and indeed what not. The alarm 
 began of old, and was pursued with a mighty clamor 
 and fierceness, especially by Methodius, bishop of 
 Olympus, Eustathius of Antioch, Apollinaris, Theo- 
 philus of Alexandria and Epiphanius; and the cry 
 carried on with a loud noise in after ages, insomuch 
 that the very mention of his name is in the Greek 
 church abominable at this day. 1 had once resolved 
 to have considered the chief of those notions and 
 principles of which Origen is so heavily charged by 
 the ancients, but superseded that labor, when I found 
 that the industry of the learned Monsieur Huet in 
 his Origeniana bad left no room for any one to come 
 after him ; so fully, so clearly, so impartially, with such 
 infinite variety of reading, has he discussed and 
 canvassed this matter, and thither I remit the learned 
 and capable reader. 
 
 And for those that cannot or will not be at the 
 pains to read his large and excellent discourses, they 
 may consult nearer hand the ingenious author of the 
 Letter of resolution concerning Ongen and ihe chief 
 of his opinions; where they will find the most obnox- 
 ious of his dogmata reckoned up, and the apologies 
 and defences which a sincere lover of Origen might 
 be supposed to make in his behalf, and these pleas 
 represented with all the advantages with which wit, 
 reason, and eloquence could set them ofi".' Cave, 
 voL2. pp. 417, 418. 
 
 Speaking of Justin Martyr, Cave says : (306, 7, 8, 
 same volume,) 'Concerning the state of Ihe soul after 
 
87 
 
 this life, Le affirms that the souls even of the prophets 
 and righteous men fell under the power of demons; 
 though how far that power should extend he tells us 
 not; grounding his assertion upon no other basis than 
 the single instance of Samuel's being summoned up 
 by the enchantments of the Pythoness. 
 
 Nor does he assert it to bo necessarily so; seeing 
 he grants that by our hearty endeavors and prayers to 
 God, our souls at the hour of their departure may es- 
 cape the seizure of those evil powers. To this we 
 may add, what he seems to maintain, that the souls of 
 good men are not received in heaven till the resur- 
 rection; that when they depart the body, they remaiu 
 en lereitton poi chooroo, \n ?i better state, where be- 
 ing gathered within ilself, the soul perpetually enjoys 
 what it loved; but that the souls of the unrighteous 
 and the wicked are thrust into a worse condition, 
 where they fxoect the judgment of the great day; 
 and he reckons it air.ong ll'.?- errors of some pretend- 
 ed christians, who denTed the resurrection, and af 
 firmed that their souls immediately after tieaili were 
 taken into heaven. Nor herein did he stand alone, 
 but had the almost unanimous suffrage of primitive 
 writers voting will) him, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, 
 Hilary, Prudentius, Ambrose, Augustin, Anastasius 
 Sinaita, and indeed who not, there being a general 
 concurrence in this matter, that the souls of the right- 
 eous were not upon the dissolution presently translat- 
 ed into heaven, that is, not admitted to a full and per- 
 fect fruition of the divine presence: but determined to 
 certain secret and unknown repositories, where they 
 enjoyed a state of imperfect blessedness, waiting for 
 the accomplishment of it at the general resurrection, 
 which intermediate slate they will have desciibed un- 
 der the notions of Paradise and Abraham's bosom; 
 and which some of them make to be a subterranean 
 region witliin the bowels of the earth.' 
 
 'The like concurrence, though not altogether so 
 uncontiollably entertained of the ancients with our 
 Justin, we may observe in iiis opinion concerning the 
 angels, thai God having committed to them the care 
 and superintendency of tiiis sublunary world, they 
 abused the power intrusted to them, mixing (hem- 
 selves with women in wanton and sensual embraces, 
 of whom they begat a race and posterity of demons. 
 An assertion not only intimated by Philo and Joseph- 
 us, but expressly owned by Papias, Alhenagoras, 
 Clemens Alexandrilius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactan- 
 tius, Sulpitius, Severus, St. Ambrose, and many more. 
 That which first gave birth to this opinion (easily em- 
 braced by those who held angels to be corporal,) was 
 a mitunderslanding of tliis passage: the sons of God 
 saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and 
 they took them to wife, and they bear children to them, 
 the same became mighty men, men of renown.'' 
 
 I might here also insist upon what some find so 
 much fault with in our Martyr, his magnifying the 
 IX)wor of man's u ill, which is notoriously known to 
 have been the current doctrine of the Fatiiers^ through 
 all the first ages, till the rise of the Pelagian contro- 
 versies; lliough they still generally own charin cx- 
 aircton a mighty assistance of divine grace to raise 
 up and enable llie soul for divine and spiritual things.' 
 'Some other disputable or disallowed opinions may 
 be probably met with in this good man's writings, but 
 which are mostly nice and philosophical. And indeed 
 having been brought up under so many several in- 
 stil ii I ions of philoso|)hy, and coming (as most of the 
 Fathers did) fresh out of the schools of Plato, it is 
 tho less to be wondered ot, if tlie notions which he 
 
 had there imbibed stuck to him, and he endeavored, 
 as much as might be, to reconcile the Platonic prin- 
 ciples with the dictates of Christianity.' 
 
 So much for the faith of the Fathers as a 
 means to show what was the faith of the Uni- 
 versal church. 
 
 We now come down after four hundred jears 
 to Augustine. He was called bj Dr. Beecher 
 the Calvin of Calvinism, and we were told that 
 he taught as Calvin taught. And what did Cal- 
 vin teach? From the passages quoted from him 
 it is proved that he taught that man corrupted 
 by the fall sins voluntarily. Well; and who de- 
 nies it? But what does Dr. Beecher say? that 
 man cannot be depraved till he sins voluntarilyr 
 or, to use his own words from his sermon : 'Neith- 
 er a holy nor n depraved nature is possible with- 
 out choice. If therefore man is depraved by 
 nature, it is a voluntary nature that is depraved.' 
 Dr. B. might as well bring up a question as to 
 the relevancv of this sermon as testimony. It 
 has been said"*, after the trial has proceeded to a 
 great length, that the testimony is irrelevant: 
 that it is outlawed. 
 
 [Dr. Beecher. I did not say that. 
 Dr. Wilson. Well: I will not remark on 
 that, then. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. You must not on what I did 
 not say. As to there being no depravity, 1 have 
 not said there could be none without the will. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. You said there can be none 
 without choice; and I know no difference.] 
 
 It seems, however, that the sermon has noth- 
 ing to do with the case, because it is not on the 
 subject of original sin, but relates exclusively to 
 adult man. But what is the title? 'A Sermon 
 on the Native Character of Man.' I presume 
 that what is native is something born with us; 
 and though it should be spoken concerning tm 
 adult man, stillit must mean something born with 
 him. Native means (hat. Dr. Beecher can't 
 get over it. His argument is that man is irre- 
 ligious by nature. Then the sermon certainly 
 has relation to what is called original sin. As 
 to the sin of adults being voluntary, there is no 
 dispute. But here wc come to the point: Is all 
 sin voluntary ? Do our standards say so? The 
 Confession of Faith says that original sin is nev- 
 ertheless sin, and damnable sin. Yes, sir: it is 
 that dark and stagnant pool, that black and hor- 
 rid thing behind the will, which Dr. Beecher 
 has endeavored to ridicule. Dr. B. says that all 
 sin is voluntary: but I shall show that his ser- 
 mon is incorrect not only as it respects original 
 sin, but as it regards adult man also. That the 
 sermon has the strongest allusion to original sin 
 is plain. The. first of the sermon (I will not 
 now trouble presbytery by reading the ex- 
 tracts) distinguishes between the creature be- 
 fore and after accountability; plainly implying 
 that there is a period during which the creature 
 exists before responsibility: and during that 
 time it is neither good nor bad. He can't get 
 over it. 
 
88 
 
 [Dr. Bcecher. Please to read the passages.] 
 The sermon is in the hands of the court. It 
 
 speaks for itself. But look here: 
 
 'The Erst sin is free, and might have been and 
 
 ought to have been avoided.' 
 
 'Whatever efTect the fall of man may have 
 had' — is not that original sin? 'the early consti- 
 tution of man' — is not this original sin? native 
 sin? I therefore insist that the testimony is re- 
 levant; and relevant on the charge concerning 
 original sin. 
 
 I will now show that his doctrine, as it respects 
 adult man, is at war with the truth. 
 
 'As all sin is voluntary, every sinner must have 
 understanding of the law and consciousness that he 
 is about to do wrong.' 
 
 I say this is against the truth. The Scripture 
 teaches us much about 'sins of ignorance.' I 
 shall not contend . that a sin of ignorance is as 
 heinous as a sin committed with knowledge; but 
 I shall contend, and prove, that it is a sin, and 
 a damning sin. Let us look at Leviticus iv. 2 
 — 13, and we shall find a particular provision 
 made concerning the priest who has sinned 
 through ignorance; for a common man who has 
 done the same; and for the whole congregation. 
 There was always atonement required^ It was 
 an offence of such a kind that the man who com- 
 mitted it deserved punishment, and the punish- 
 ment of his sin fell upon the victim he brought 
 for sacrifice. And what does Paul teach us, 
 standing on Mars' Hill, in the midst of that il- 
 lustrious assembly of Grecian sages? 'The 
 times of this ignorance God winked at, but now 
 commandeth all men every where to repent.' — 
 The sin of that people was gross idolatry — they 
 were wholly given unto idols; yef according to 
 Paul they sinned ignorantly. 'Whom ye ignor- 
 antly worship, him declare I unto you.' And 
 what does he say of himself: 'I obtained mercy 
 because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.' Had 
 he known what he was doing, his sin would have 
 been unpardonable. Was he conscious of 
 crime when he was hauling the saints to prison 
 and compelling them to blaspheme? No. He 
 verily thought with himself that he was doing 
 God service. But as soon as he got knowledge, 
 then he considered himself the greatest of all 
 sinners, and though converted, yet the least of 
 all saints. And what does the Scriptures say of 
 the 'Princes of this world,' when they 'crucified 
 the Lord of Glory?' that they did it with knowl- 
 edge of the fact? No; for had they known it 
 they would not have crucified him; but it says 
 that 'none of them knew.' And for vi'hat is it 
 that Christ will come a second time? For two 
 objects: to 'take vengeance on them that knew 
 not God,' as well as to receive and save his peo- 
 ple. He says expressly that he will take ven- 
 geance on men ignorant of God. They are to 
 go into the same company with the rejecters of 
 the gospel, to the left hand of the Judge. What 
 need of sending the gospel to the heathen if 
 their ignorance is to excuse them? They are 
 
 sinning ignorantly, worshipping the best god 
 they know. It is true that their fathers once 
 had the gospel and rejected it; but their de- 
 scendants lie under that sin as the Jews now do 
 under the sin of their ancestors. Does the 
 heathen man sin with knowlege and conscious- 
 ness? He often does; and did he sin with ma- 
 lice it would be the unpardonable sin. Paul 
 had malice in his sin; if he had had knowledge 
 also, his offence would never have had forgive- 
 ness; his fate would have been sealed. But 
 there remains another question: Is all sin vol- 
 untary? You know that is not the doctrine of 
 our standards. The doctrine of the Confession 
 is that which Calvin taught; that man, being 
 corrupted by the fall, sins voluntarily. That is 
 the doctrine of our church. 
 
 But to return ; for We have gone into an epi- 
 sode, aside from the subject of the fathers, on 
 which we started. I repeat it: four hundred 
 years after the apostles, down to the times of 
 Augustine, we know nothing of any church 
 creed, but the Bible. If that teaches man's 
 natural ability, then Dr. Beecher may prove it 
 from the Bible; but not from the fathers. I 
 shall for the present pass by Augustine, and ask 
 the Moderator to be so good as to read his own 
 version of an extract from Turretin, which was 
 produced by Dr. Beecher in his defence. 
 
 Professor Stowe, the Moderator of Presbytery, 
 then read again the extract in question, from 1 Tur- 
 ret. 72.9, 730; edit. 1688. See Journal, Aug. 21, 
 1st p. 3d col. 
 
 Now it has been said that Turretin teaches the 
 doctrine of man's natural abih'ly, as Dr. Beecher 
 does; and that his work is the text book used at 
 Princeton; and the argument is, that if Dr. Beecher 
 is a heretic, the profes^^ors of the Princeton Semina- 
 ry must be heretics also. Now Turretin does go ia- 
 to some nice and subtle distinctions; but in the end, 
 ho comes out plainly and declares that man's inabili- 
 ty is as insuperable as that of a lame man to walk; 
 and that it is improper to say that a man can believe 
 if he wishes to believe. And does this prove that he 
 and Dr. Beecher teach one and the same thing? 
 Lay the two side by side ; and do they coincide? No; 
 they vary from each other as much as a straight 
 line and a curved line. But suppose that Turretin 
 diJ teach verbatim as Dr. Beecher does, would ihat 
 prove that his was the doctrine of the whole church? 
 If Princeton adopted the book in whole, it would 
 only prove that Princeton was corrupt. But many 
 books are used, the whole of whose contents are not 
 adopted; and the students are warned against those 
 points wherein they are exceptionable. Paley's 
 Moral Philosophy, for example, is very commonly 
 used as a text book, although it contains many things 
 that arc erroneous. So Turretin might be used in 
 like manner, without any sanction of all the ground 
 he takes. And now I ask, what _has Dr. Beecher 
 proved by his quotation from Turretin? Nothing, 
 but Ihat Turretin contradicts him. 
 
 The next evidence adduced by Dr. Beecher is Lu- 
 ther. Turretin says that Luther is wrong, though he 
 followed Augustine. The will is always free. 
 We all know this. It is an absurdity to talk about 'a 
 bound will;' there is, and there can be, no such 
 
89 
 
 thing. Yet Augustine and Lutlierboth taught the 
 doctrine of a bound will. Were it a proper time, I 
 could siiow wliat the freedom of the will is. But I 
 want Luther to speak for himself. Hear him on Gal- 
 atians, v, 17: 
 
 'And these are contrary one to the other: so that 
 yc cunnot do the same thing that ye would' — 
 
 'This place wltnesselh plainly that Paul writeth 
 these things to the faithful, that is to the church be- 
 lieving in Christ, baptised, renewed, justified, and 
 having full forgiveness of sins. Yet notwithstanding 
 he saith, that she hath fle::h rebelling against the 
 Spirit. After the same manner he speaketh of him- 
 self in the seventh to the Romans. We credit Paul's 
 own words that he hath a law in his members rebel- 
 ling against hitn.' — 'This battle of the flesh against 
 the Spirit all the children of God have had and feh, 
 and tliesclf same do we also feel and prove. He 
 that searcheth his own conscience, if he be not a hyp- 
 ocrite, shnll well perceive that to be true in himself 
 which Paul here saith: that the flesh lusteth against 
 the Spirit. All the faithful do therefore feel and con- 
 fess that their flesh resistelh against the Spirit, and 
 that these two are soconlrary tlie one to the other in 
 themselves, that (2o w/(a<Me^ca;i, I hey are not able 
 to perform that which they would do. Therefore 
 the flesh hindereth us that we cannot keep the com- 
 mandments of Go:l, that we cannot love our neighbors 
 as ourselves, much less can we love God with all our 
 heart: therefore it ia impossible for us" to become right- 
 eous by the works of the law. Indeed there is a 
 GOOD will in us, and so must tliere be, (for it is the 
 Spirit which resisteth the flesh,) which would gladly do 
 good, fulfil the law, love God and his neighbor, and 
 such like, but the flesh obeycth not this good will, but 
 resisteth it; and yet God imputeth not unto us this 
 sin: fur he is merciful to those that believe for Christ's 
 sake.' 
 
 So much for Luther's testimony to the doctrine of 
 Natural ability. 
 
 And now Matthew Henry. (Dr. Green, it seems, 
 was a great heretic, for recommending Henry and 
 Scott!) 
 
 £zek. xi. 19. 'And I will give them one heart, and 
 I will put a new spirit within you: and J will take the 
 atony heart out of their flesh and will give them a 
 heart of flesh.' 
 
 'God will plant good principles in them; he will 
 make the tree good. This is the gospel promise, and 
 is made good to all those whom God designs for the 
 heavenly Canaan; for God prepares all for heaven, 
 whom he has prepared heaven for.' Again — Ezek. 
 xviii. 31. " — make you a new heart and a new spirit.' 
 "Wo must make us a new heart and a uew spirit." 
 This was the matter of promise — xi. 19; here it is 
 the mailer of a precept. We must do our endeavor, 
 and then God will not be wanting to us to give ns his 
 grace. 
 
 And now to apply Dr. Beocher's rule, of not need- 
 lesslv making a book contradict itself, look ut Phil. ii. 
 12, 13: 
 
 'Work out your own salvation,' &c. 
 
 'Work with fear, for he works of his good pleasure 
 — (o irill and to do — he gives the wfiole ability. — 
 It is the grace of God that inclines the will to that 
 which is good, and then enables us to perform it, and 
 to act according to our princii>le3. Thou hast wrougM 
 all our works in us. — Isa. xxvi. 12. Of his good 
 
 12 
 
 pleasure. As tliere is no strength in us, so there is no 
 merit in us.' 
 
 If this teaches natural ability, as Dr. Beecher does, 
 he is welcome to all the benefit of the evidence. 
 
 And next let me qu,)te Dr. Matthews, Theological 
 Professor in South Hanover Seminary, Indiana. This 
 authority was claimed by Dr. Beecher; andasi recom- 
 mended the sermon, it was the more triumphantly 
 relied on; and the mathematical axiom was applied, 
 that two things which are equal to the same thing 
 are equal to one another. 1 do not recall my recom- 
 mendation : and now let us hear what the sermon says, 
 and let us remL^mber the rule about consistent inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 Extract from Dr. Matthews'' Sermon, called ' Unity 
 of Christ and the Church.^ Orig. Ser. 1833. 
 
 'There are two senses in which we are dead.' 
 
 'We, by nature, sustain to the moral Governor of 
 the world, no other relation than that of condemned 
 rebels; we have forfeited all the rights and privileges 
 which belong to faithful and obedient subjects. Our 
 natural life may, for a time, be preserved; but \he fa- 
 vor of God, which is life,\s lost; the sentence of 
 death is solemnly pronounced upon us. Nor is it 
 possible, by any exertions we can make, to change 
 our state of condemnation into a state of favor with 
 God.' pp. 211,212. 
 
 'There is another sense in which we are dead. Ws 
 are by nature insen.^ible to the claims both of the di- 
 vine law and the gospel. The tenants of the grave 
 are insensible to the interests and active pursuits of 
 life; the wealth, the honor, the pleasure of this world, 
 no longer make any impression on them. So are we 
 insensible to the real interests of eternity, to the in- 
 trinsic importance of spiritual things, p. 213. 
 
 'We possess, indeed, all the natural faculties which 
 God demands in his service; but we are without' the 
 moral power, we have not the disposition, the desire 
 to employ them m his service. This want of dispo- 
 sition, instead of furuishing the shadow of excuse for 
 our unbelief and impenitence, is the very essence oT 
 sin, the demonstration of our guilt. 
 
 Here, then, is work for Omnipotence itself. Here 
 is not only insensibility to be quickened, but here is 
 opposition, here is enmity to be destroyed. The art 
 and tlie maxims of men may change, in some degree, 
 the outward appearances, but they never can reach 
 the seat of the disease ; there it will remain, and there 
 it will operate, after all that created wisdom and pow- 
 er can do. That power which can start the pulse of 
 spiritual life within us, must reach and control the 
 very origin of thought, p. 214. 
 
 Could I have found amusement in a scene so 
 solemn as this, I should really have been amused 
 at the manner in which Dr. Beecher despatched 
 Drs. Twiss, Green, and Spring. Dr. Twiss 
 was Prolocutor to the Assembly of Divines at 
 Westminster; and in a book of his, not in the 
 Confession of the Divines, he published a senti- 
 ment which Dr. B. has laid hold of to prove that 
 Twiss taught the same doctrine with himself; 
 and tlierefoie Dr. Twiss is as great a heretic as 
 Dr. Beecher. Fine logic! Dr. Spring has 
 been. appointed to goto Europe; and because 
 he published, years ago, a book that contained 
 errors, therefore the whole Presbyterian church 
 is erroneous! 
 
90 
 
 I will now return, and take up the Harmony 
 of Confessions. From the dajs of Augustine to 
 tiie age of the Reformation, there was a lapse of 
 eleven centuries, and Dr. Beecher has underta- 
 ken to prove that the church in all those ages 
 held as he holds. For 400 years to Augustine, 
 the faith ■ of the whole church is to be learned 
 from the Bible; and eleven hundred more to the 
 Reformation, there is no evidence of what the 
 church held, save in the dark remains of Popery ! 
 or from the Scriptures. 
 
 No evidence has been adduced to show that 
 in this long period thoy held hisdoctrine. There 
 was no creed but the Bible: and he must seek 
 his evidence there, or find it nowhere. 
 
 Let us see if the creed ofHelvetia teaches, as 
 has been alleged, the doctrine of natural ability, 
 as Dr. Beecher holds it. 
 
 [Dr. Beecher. I did not produce the reform- 
 ed creeds (o prove natural ability, but to prove 
 moral inability.] 
 
 Very well. You say, however, that the 
 church, in all ages, has held as you teach. 
 
 [Dr. Beecher. These cannot be quoted as my 
 evidence.] 
 
 ,We!l; then they shall be quoted as mine: and 
 I. bring them to siiow that Dr. Beecher does 
 not hold the faith of the Reformed churches. 
 
 And we take sin to be that natural corruption of 
 jnan, derived or spread from those our first parents 
 Unto us ail, Through which we being drowned in evil 
 vdncupiscences, and clean turned away frum God, 
 hut prone lo all evil, full of all wickedneAS, distrust, 
 contempt, and hatred of God, can do no good of our- 
 selves, no not so much as think of any. p. 58. 
 
 We are to consider, what man was after his fall. — 
 Hi? understanding indeed was not taken from him, 
 jjeither was he deprived of will, and altogether chang- 
 ed into a stone or stock. Nevertheless, these things 
 are so altered in man, that they are not able to do that 
 now, which they could not do before his fall. For his 
 -luideistanding is darkened, and his will, which before 
 was free, is now become a servile will; for it serveth 
 sin, not nilling, hul willing: for it is called a will, 
 and hot a nilJing. Therefure, as loucWng evil or sin, 
 man does evil, not compelled either by God or the 
 Devil, but of his own accord- and in this respect he 
 hath a most free will. p. 60. 
 
 They take a distinction between the state of 
 <in adult man who sins, and the state of man 
 naturally in which the will is servile, tlie under- 
 standing darkened, the atfections depraved. — 
 These control the will. 
 
 I was not a little surprised at Dr. Beecher's 
 •reply when I asked him what the word 'things' 
 referred to here. He said he was not answera- 
 ble for the grammatical construction of the sen- 
 tences in the creed. But who can read it, and 
 pot see that 'things' refers to the understanding 
 and the atreclions? they are the natural antece- 
 dents. 
 
 Dr. Vf. then read the extracts already quoted 
 in Dr. Beecher's defence, from the French Coiv- 
 fession, Belgian Confession, Augsburgh Confes- 
 sion, flnd the opinions of St. Augustine. 
 
 Whatever may be made out ofj the sentence 
 in St. Augustine, it only goes to prove that he 
 believed in the freedom of the will, yet that it 
 is under the control of a depraved nature in 
 such a manner t^ at it can do nothing accepta- 
 ble to God, nor act from proper motives, without 
 the aid of divine grace. 
 
 The Synod of Dort was introduced for. some 
 purpose, I don't, remember what. But I now 
 introduce it to the same end as I adduced the 
 Harmony of Confessions, to show that the ser- 
 mon of Dr. Beecher isin opposition to the creeds 
 of the Reforn.ed churches. 
 
 All men are conceived in sin, and by nature child- 
 ren of wrath, incapable of any saving good, prone to 
 evil, dead in sin and in- bondage thereto; and without 
 the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit they are 
 neither oble nor willing to return to God, to reform 
 the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose them- 
 selves to reformation. 
 
 I have but one remark on this extract: and 
 it is, that the word rendered indisposed, is in the 
 Latin ^inrpli,^ unfit, improper, insufficient. The 
 word 'insufficient' would most truly express the 
 force of the original.' 
 
 I now proceed to the Bible. But before I 
 do so, I wish to remark, in respect to the inter- 
 pretation of the parables: that, in order righfl/ 
 to Interpret them, we must look at the truth 
 mainly intended to be taught in each parable. 
 There is but one grand truth aimed at, and 
 though there are many circumstances thrown 
 in to make the parable more complete, it 
 is improper to make these suhordinate parts 
 of it the subject of doctrinal or practical specu- 
 lation. In the parable of the Virgins, for in- 
 stance, it would not be sound interpretation, to 
 argue, that because there was an equal number 
 of wise' and foolish virgins, therefore the num- 
 ber of saved and' lost in the last day will be the 
 same. By this false mode of exposition, it 
 niight be proved from the parable of the Prodi- 
 gal Son, that a returning and repentant sinner 
 can be received by God without atonement or 
 mediator. This can as well be proved from the 
 Prodigal Son, as the doctrine of natural ability 
 from the parable of the Talents. 
 
 Another observation, touching the figurative 
 language of the Bible. Dr. Beecher has told 
 us that there is much of such language in the 
 Scriptures. And who denies it? He insists 
 that 'heart of stone' does not mean a rock of 
 granite. And who has ever pretended that it 
 does? who ever thought, who ever dreamed of 
 maintaining such a thing? But the figure does 
 mean something. It does mean that God does 
 for man what man has no power to do for him- 
 self: it does mean that God takes something 
 out of man, and puts something into him: and 
 if you can find out what is that evil within 
 which is" taken away, and what is that good from; 
 without which is put in its place, then you have 
 found out the true meaning of the figure. 
 
 I shall not comment upon all the passages of 
 
91 
 
 Scripture which have been quoted. But I have 
 one text on which I shall say a few things. — 
 'The Natural Man receiveth not the things of 
 the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, 
 because they are spiritually discerned.' This 
 is the text, now for the sermon. 
 
 'The Natural Man" is a man in his unrenewed 
 state, a man in the same nature with wliich he 
 was born; though his nature may have put forth 
 80 many transgressions that like the Ethiopian 
 he cannot change his skin, any more than the 
 leopard can change his spots. 'The Natural 
 Man' what is he? a stock? a stone? a brute? — 
 No, he is a man; thugh he is a Natural Man. 
 He possesses all the physical parts of a human 
 body, and all tlie faculties of a human mind. In 
 his body are the appetites necessary to its pre- 
 servation and well being. In his mind arc the 
 faculties of thinking, perceiving, and judging; 
 of consciousness; the affeclions of love and 
 hatredand joy, and the passions of anger mnlice 
 and wrath. But this man, possessing all these 
 powers of body and faculties of mind, is in a 
 very different stale from Adam. What consti- 
 tutes the Man?' It is his mind. The body is 
 only the tabernacle in which it sojourns. It is 
 the mind, the soul, that is the Man himself. — 
 The body, without it, is only dead inert matter, 
 that cannot think, or feel, or move. But united 
 to the soul it constitutes a man with all his 
 faculties, all that is necessary to make him a ra- 
 tional and accountable being. I do not pretend 
 that in regeneration there is any new faculty 
 added to the soul, or any new member to the 
 body. These remain the same as they were 
 before; but they are in very different circum- 
 stances. The Natural Man is a fallen being, 
 depraved in every part of soul and body; total- 
 ly depraved; in ruins; disabled; butnot unable 
 as a rational creature to perform the natural ac- 
 tions of man. He is 'wise to do evil: but to do 
 good he has no knowledge.' He cannot discern 
 the things of the Spirit of God; they stand op- 
 posed to the things of the Natural Man. That 
 which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is 
 born of tiie Spirit is the spirit. When he is re- 
 newed, he becomes a spiritual man; then he has 
 spiritual di.sccrnment; but previous to this he 
 has none. He cannot receive the things of the 
 spirit, neither ran he know them. But does this 
 prove that he can do nothing as a rational in- 
 telligent being, with respect to that which is in 
 itself good? He does many things in them- 
 selves good; but he does none of them from 
 right motives. He can plough: yet we are told 
 that the ploughing of the wicked is sin. Why? 
 because they plough not to God's glory. Tliey 
 do this as nil other actions, as natural men. — 
 But thoy have no ability to do it as spiritual men. 
 As an intelligent being, with a mind capable of 
 cultivation, and with powers of thought, and 
 volition, with affections of the mind in connex- 
 ion with appetites of the body we may see a 
 Natural Man take up the Bible; he may be 
 
 able to study it in the original languages as he 
 studies any other book in a foreign tongue; and 
 he may be able fully to comprehend what duties 
 it inculcates, and what sins it forbids; he may 
 see the evidence it contains that Jesus Christ is 
 the Son of God: still it is true tiiat he 'rec.eiveth 
 not the things of the Spirit of God, neither 
 can he know them.' 
 
 Now when his condition is changed, so that 
 he becomes a spiritual man, the chnnge is as- 
 serted to be accomplished by the direct agency 
 of God: and this is denied upon the other side. 
 Dr. Beecher says no man can be helped by God, 
 unless he first does something for himself; any 
 more than a piece tf lead. 
 
 [Dr. Beecher. That was not my reasoning. 
 The passage Dr. Wilson refers to was not mine. 
 It is contained in one of the extracts that were 
 read.] 
 
 You made the same assertion: that a piece of 
 lead cannot be helped to do anything. Very 
 true; it cannot by any human power; but God 
 can help it just as he once helped iron to swim. 
 The law of gravitation prevents iron from float- 
 ing in water, because its specific gravityis so 
 much greater; but God can put forth the hand of 
 power against the laws of gravitation, so as to 
 make iron to swim: and just so he could the piece 
 of lead. 
 
 MHiile speaking of the divine agency in pro- 
 ducing Regeneration, Dr. Beecher made some 
 remarks whicii attracted my attention. He said, 
 if I understood him right, that regeneration is 
 alwuys effected by the instrumentality of the 
 word of God; and that what is done by instru- 
 mentality cannot at the same lime be done by 
 direct agency. And tlie illustration of this doc- 
 trine was taken from the manner in which God 
 operates in tlie natural world, establishing a law 
 which uniformly governs matter; and it was 
 contended that he did just so in the world of 
 mind : and hence, by the establishment of natu- 
 ral laws in the natural world, and moral laws in 
 the moral world, he excluded his own direct 
 agency altogether. And we were asked, if the 
 planets should stop, would God send the ten 
 commandments to set them in motion again? I 
 answer, no; but he would set them moving as 
 at. the first, by Iiis own direct almighty agency. 
 There was a time when they did stand still. At 
 the voice of Joshua the spheres were stopped 
 in their courses: the very case supposed did ac- 
 tually happen. And who set the sun in motion 
 again? the same right hand of the Almighty 
 that gave it motion at the creation. But Dr. 
 Beecher will have us to believe that God has 
 excluded himself from access to his own crea- 
 tures; so that his Spirit cannot operate upon a 
 human mind, whose powers are all moving in a 
 wrong direction, to turn it into the path of life! 
 Will such a declaration be tolerated in the 
 church of God? Look at what the scriptures 
 say: A sower went forth to sow. His seed was 
 good, and he sowed it alike in four different 
 
92 
 
 kinds of ground: that by the wayside, (hat 
 which was rocky, that which was full of thorns, 
 and that which was good and fertile. The 
 same seed was sown upon them all, and yet in 
 only one out of the four it prospered ; and that 
 was in the good ground. Was such a thing 
 ever heard of as a sower putting seed upon the 
 ground to make it good ground.? No; he puts 
 it on a certain ground, because he believes the 
 ground to be already good. The ground is good 
 before the seed is put into it. It has been pro- 
 pared and made fit to receive the seed; the sun 
 has shone upon it; the showers and dews of 
 heaven have descended, and it brings forth a 
 crop. So in the heart of man. God secures a 
 crop by first making the ground good; and this 
 he does by his own direct agency. He quick- 
 ens those who are dead in sins by the same pow- 
 er, the same mighty power, by which he raised 
 Christ from the dead. I do not say the parable 
 proves this doctrine; but I say that the Bible 
 every where declares it. The preparation of 
 the heart in man is from the Lord. Truth will 
 do no good until the heart is prepared to receive 
 it. The seed of the gospel falls on all sorts of 
 ground; but it finds none lobe good ground 
 has prepared. The ploughshare of the Spirit 
 must first have broken up the fallow ground of 
 the heart. 'As many as received him, to them 
 gave he power to become the sons of God; 
 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will 
 of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' 
 That God uses means, that ministers use means, 
 that private christians use means for the sancti- 
 fication of men, none dispute. But to hear it 
 said that God cannot reach his own creatures 
 by his Spirit is altogether erroneous, and not to 
 be borne. 
 
 [Dr. Beecher. I made no such declaration.] 
 Again: we read that Paul went to Philippi, 
 and after some time he found out a prayer meet- 
 ing held by a few women at the water's side. — 
 He preached the gospel to them, and one of 
 their number received the truth. And what 
 does the text say about her? That the truth 
 opened her heart? No: but that the Lord open- 
 ed her heart, so that she attended to the things 
 spoken by Paul. The inattentive hearer of the 
 gospel, I admit, does voluntarily and wickedly 
 close his ears to the gospel. But when the Lord 
 himself moves upon his heart, then he closes 
 them no longer; then he receives the word in 
 love, and practises it in his life. This it is 
 which changes the natural man into the spirit- 
 ual man. When he is changed, there is some- 
 thing done for him which he could not do for 
 himself. He could see that the gospel was a 
 beautiful piece of composition ; he might even 
 argue in its favor, as if he understood it well; 
 but till his heart is changed he has no spiritual 
 discernment of its excellence or power. 
 
 And this leads me directly to take up the 
 subject of the Will. And I shall show that it 
 
 is not the faculty on which the Spirit operates 
 to produce a change in man. 
 
 The term will, from the various ways in which 
 it is used, or different subjects to which it is ap- 
 plied is variously defined. In ordinary conver- 
 sation it frequently denotes 'choice or prefer- 
 ence.' When used in a metaphysical sense, 
 those words do not always express the idea. — 
 Will is considered a faculty of the mind. — 
 Choice, or preference, is an act, not a faculty of 
 mind. 
 
 President Edwards defines it to be, ^that fac- 
 ulty, orporoer, or principle of mind, hy which it is 
 capable of choosing — an act of will is the same 
 as an act of choice.'' Mr, Locke says, Hhe will 
 signifies nothing, but the power or ability to prefer, 
 or choose.'' Again, '/Ae word preferring seems 
 best to express the act of volition^ &c. Deference 
 is due to the opinions of great man: yet proba- 
 bly the strict accuracy of these, and especially 
 the last, may be fairly called in question. We 
 may perhaps choose, or at least desire, or pre- 
 fer, what we cannot be strictly said to will: a 
 man , for example, who has not a suitable vehi- 
 cle, might choose, or prefer riding to walking, 
 on a journey, but he does not will it, because 
 he determines to prosecute his journey on foot. 
 Will respects what is practicable; preference 
 may respect what is not. As a matter of neces- 
 sity I walk on a journey — I do it voluntarily. 
 Yet I might say with strict propriety, that I pre- 
 ferred riding. I will to eat such food as I have 
 — I might prefer something better. 
 
 Mr. Reid says, ' Will is the determination of 
 the mind to do or not to do something which we con- 
 ceive to be in our power.' This, while it seems 
 to come nearer the fact, yet it may perhaps be 
 fairly excepted to, provided we call will faculty 
 of the soul. Determination is an act, not a 
 faculty of the soul. Were it said that will is 
 (he power by which the mind is determined with 
 regard to its own actions, this would appear to 
 be more correct. What Mr. Reid calls the will, 
 is an exertion of a faculty of the mind, not a 
 faculty itself. The power exerted is the cause; 
 the determination is the effect. His definition 
 confounds things which are distinct; yet its 
 leading features are undoubtedly correct. An 
 act of will or a volition, supposes its object pos- 
 sible, or within its reach. We never determine 
 to do, what we know to be out of our power. 
 We may desire to fly — we never will do it. 
 
 It is probable, however, that our ideas are 
 frequently bewildered by multiplying the facul- 
 ties of the mind. Will, we apprehend, is the 
 soul itself determining. The mind is suscepti- 
 ble of different exercises, such as love, anger, 
 gratitude, willing, &c. In each case, it is the 
 soul itself exerting a power which it possesses, 
 adapted to the particular . act. Using the term 
 in this sense, it implies all the active and moral 
 powers of the soul determining its own acts. 
 
 We are not disposed to pursue this part of 
 
93 
 
 the subject farther, but shall briefly attend to 
 the long agitated and perplexing question, what 
 is the efficient cause of our volitions, or, as 
 usually expressed, 'what determines the will?' 
 
 Here observe, however, that this inquiry does 
 not cnll in question the fact that willing is the 
 act of the soul. This none have ever doubted. 
 But the question is this; is the soul the efficient 
 author of its own volition — or, is volition to be 
 attributed to some other cau.-c? 
 
 We also remark, that what is called the Hiber- 
 ty of the wilQ or man's being a voluntary agent 
 in his own acts, is not a point at issue in the pre- 
 sent inquiry; for in this, all are, and must be 
 agreed. It would be folly to attempt to prove 
 what the plain common sense of every man 
 acknowledges to be a fact. Our own conscious- 
 ness, the best possible proof, is our evidence in 
 this case; and hence every rational being feels 
 himself liable to praise or blame for his actions. 
 We might as well undertake to prove to a man 
 with his eyes open that the sun does not shine at 
 noon-day, as to attempt to prove to a man, that 
 he is not free in his own acts. An involuntary 
 act is not our own act; nor do we feel accounta- 
 ble in such a case. But this does not decide the 
 point at issue. Our volitions, all agree, are our 
 own acts; but the question is, are we efficiently 
 the cause of them, or are Ihey to be attributed 
 to some other agency ? 
 
 Some have contended that the will determin- 
 ed itself. Now, if in this answer to the ques- 
 tion, by the term will is meant, as often is the 
 case, the act of willing, or volition itself, the 
 assumpsion is absurd. Volition is a determina- 
 tion of the soul, an act, an effect, not a cause, 
 while the assumption makes it both cause and 
 effect, which is impossible. It supposes a thing 
 to act in its own production, before it has an ex- 
 istence, than which nothing can be more pre- 
 posterous. But if by this answf r it is intended, 
 that the state of the man, including all his ra- 
 tional, animal, and moral powers and principles, 
 determines his will, the case assumes a different 
 aspect. We are not yet prepared to contradict 
 it. 
 
 President Edwards says, 'It is that motive, 
 which, as it stands in view of the mind, is (he 
 strongest that determines the will.' ' Motive, he 
 says, is the whole of that which moves, excites 
 or invites the mind to volition. Whatever is a 
 motive in (his sense, must be something that is 
 ex(ant in the view or apprehension of the un- 
 derstanding, or perceiving faculty.' If by mo- 
 tives, the President means external objects mere- 
 ly, which he does not clearly state, the answer 
 is not satisfaclory. Food is a motive in this 
 sense; yet it does not determine a man to eat 
 who has no appetite. The different amusements 
 or employments of life, are motives in the same 
 sense, yet on account of difference of taste, men 
 are very differently determined, as it regards 
 (heir use. Anything intrinsically belonging to 
 the objects, cannot account for the different vo- 
 
 litions of men. One man inclines to use meat; 
 another, vegetables. One determines on the 
 life of a sailor; another, that of a merchant; 
 another, that of a farmer; and a fourth, that of a 
 mechanic. The intrinsical quality of the ob- 
 jects are the same, whether chosen or not. We 
 cannot, therefore, find in objects, without the 
 mind itself, that which will satisfactorily ac- 
 count for the different volitions o( the mind. — 
 Yet we are not prepared wholly to reject the 
 President's theory; for it is undoubtedly true, 
 that our minds will alw.iys be determined favor- 
 ably to that object which is the most invi- 
 ting in the view of the understanding; and they 
 will reject whatever is less so. But, at the 
 same time, it is clear, that no object whatever, 
 considered separately from the state of the 
 mind itself, induces volition — it does not (to use 
 the President's phrase)' move.' In other words, it 
 is not a motive. A man is sick: you present him 
 with the most delicious food — he is disgusted, 
 and rejects it. Restore this man to health, 
 and present him the same object, there is a dif- 
 ferent volition, but no change in the quality of 
 (he object. The sta(e of the man is chang- 
 ed; and this accounts for ihe change of voli- 
 tion. Suppose another case. Food is pre- 
 sented to a hungry man — through the impulse 
 of appetite he determines to take it. But con- 
 vince this man (hat there is deadly poison 
 in it, which will prcduce instant death, if taken 
 — he refuses to eat. Here is a different volition 
 in view of the same object, but depending on a 
 different cause. In the one case, appetite in- 
 duces volition — in the other, a rational prin- 
 ciple preponderates, which prefers life to present 
 gratification. Present a sick man, again, with 
 a nauseous medicine; he is disgusted, and re- 
 jec(s it. Convince him, however, that the same 
 
 medicine will benefit his healih if taken 
 
 Here is a change of volition, in view of the same 
 object, possessing no change of its intrinsical 
 qualifies. In the first case, disgust is the ef- 
 ficient cause of volition; in the second, the love 
 of health. Animal appetite is the determining 
 power, in the one case: reason is the power in 
 the other. A child is presented with a beautiful 
 object, the use of which is prohibited by a 
 parent's authority. The child is pleased with 
 it; but because its use is prohibited, he ab- 
 stains: here filial reverence determines the will, 
 not the object. But suppose him free from the 
 restraints of filial piety and his will is different; 
 depraved principle is the determining power. — 
 The desire of present gratification is stronger 
 than the desire to please his parent. It is still 
 something in the agent, and not in the intrinsi- 
 cal qualities of the object, which induces voli- 
 tion. It is true, what president Edwards calls 
 motives have their concern in effecting the de- 
 terminations of our minds, but it is evident 
 that independent of the state of the man in 
 view of them, they are absolutely inert things. 
 Tiiey have no more tendency to move the mind, 
 
94 
 
 than mere matter has to motion. According to 
 President Edwards, honey we say is a motive; 
 but it is such in reality only as it depends upon 
 a corresponding taste in us. It depends entire- 
 ly upon ttie state of the agent, whether to him it 
 is an object of desire or not. If he has a relish 
 for itj then^ and then only it is a motive. The 
 diflferent amusements aiul occupations, which 
 empoly the active powers of men are motives in 
 the same sense; but we cannot account for the 
 various selections which are made, only on the 
 grourtd that we are determined to do so, by dif- 
 ferent active principles. The objects have the 
 
 same qualities, whether approved or rejected 
 
 Will does not depend upon the quality of the 
 object, but upon a corresponding sentiment in 
 the agent. Such sentiment may be either natur- 
 al or acquired; but the fact for which we contend 
 is not altered. A man may be naturally averse 
 to the use of tobaco, or strong drink; but he 
 forces himself a littleagainst his natural disgust; 
 and before he is aware, habit has produced a 
 relish for the same articles, and he uses them. — 
 It is still the state of the man that causes voli^ 
 tion. 
 
 We have not time, nor do we deem it neces- 
 sary to multiply instances to illustrate the fact 
 here contemplated farther. Our object is to be 
 understood: and from what has been said, it is 
 apprehended that the following statement is 
 clear, viz: The slate of the man, or the active 
 principle 7vhich prevails in his nature, when voli- 
 tion takes place, determines- the will. 
 
 And here I would remark that all the error 
 and all the delusion on this subject, whether in 
 the speculations of Dr. Emmons or of others, 
 has sprung from one and the same source, viz: 
 from Dr. Edwards' wrong definition of the will. 
 This was the starting point both to Dr. Emmons 
 and Dr. Beecher; though in the systems they 
 have wrought out of it, they are as far apart as 
 the north and south poles. The whole hasorig- 
 inated from wrong philosophy and wrong meta- 
 physics in regard to the will. I have shown that 
 the state of the man in connexion with the views 
 presented to his mind is what determines his will. 
 The argument of my opponent is that the will is 
 the whole power of the mind: where there is 
 ability in the will, it controls the whole man. — 
 Whereas, although the will is always free, it is 
 always operated upon. It never operates upon 
 the other powers within the soul, but only on the 
 powers of the body. By volition we move our 
 arms. But can we control the affections by our 
 will? Can we, by the force of the will, love 
 what we hate? and hate what we love? Does 
 the will control the understanding, the memory, 
 the passions? No. But the will is controlled 
 by them all, in connexion with the motives which 
 operate on all through the understanding. 
 
 Taste must be created. A change in taste 
 produces a change in our volitions. 
 
 Now let us look at the doctrine of the Confes- 
 sion, with this principle in view, that the state 
 
 of the man determines the will. The will is al- 
 ways at liberty: choice is an effect, always, and 
 not a cause. It is always produced freely.-^ 
 When the mind chooses, it always chooses free- 
 ly. There is no such thing as a bound will 
 
 Hence all men do what is good or evil voluntari- 
 ly, in view of a motive, and according to the 
 slate of mind in which they are. Take man in a 
 state of innocence. God made him upright: in 
 his own image: hfs choice is free, and he choos- 
 es what is right. . But not from any power in 
 the will. The will, as I have said, has no power 
 to operate on any thing but the body. His up- 
 rightness was in thie right state of -his affections, 
 and the luminous state of his understanding; in 
 the correct state of his memory; and in his en- 
 tire moral rectitude in the divine image. His 
 will was free to do good, while no temptation 
 was presented to it. He had no motives 
 but his accountableness to God and his love to 
 God. His will operated according to the state of 
 the man. 
 
 But now look at him in another state: the 
 state of temptation. Motives are now present' 
 ed to him by the arch tempter: but not to his 
 will, at all: they are presentedto his understand- 
 ing and to his appetites; to his taste for beauty: 
 the fruit is ' pleasant to the eye." It was a natu- 
 ral desire in man; it belonged to his constitution. 
 The temptation was addressed to his desire also 
 forpowcr. This too, in itself, is innocent; and 
 the temptation was addressed not to the willj 
 but to this strong desire, and to another, no less 
 strong, the desire of knowledge. Here then is 
 the desire of knowledge, the desire of power, the 
 love of beauty, and the appetite of hunger, all 
 addressed at once. And what was the effect? — 
 The will was not biased in any other way than 
 this: the temptation addressed to these powers 
 vpas so strong that it overcame the dictates of 
 judgment, and the man chose wrong. Volition 
 moved his hand to take, opened his mouth to 
 taste, moved his throat to swallow: and the deed 
 was done. Volition moves the body: the mind 
 moves the will; and the mind is moved by that 
 without, which is adapted to its constitution. 
 
 Now let us take man in a different state. He 
 is now fallen, and become blind, so that he can- 
 not discern the things of the Spirit; he cannot 
 know them. His affections are not annihilated 
 (as our vie ws have been caricatured to represent). 
 Who ever talked of such a thing? It might as 
 well be said that a man's body is annihilatecj, 
 when he dies. No; his powers were not anni- 
 hilated by the fall: but they were brought into 
 a different state. To show that para-lysis is not 
 annihilation, would be a vain consumption of 
 time. But I will merely state what was said to 
 me by a gentleman who was conversing on the 
 subject of ability and inability. The gentleman 
 was subject to attacks of rheumatic gout. He 
 had a pecuniary transaction at the Bank of Pitts- 
 burgh, which required his personal presence 
 there. The night before, he was attacked by 
 
95 
 
 the gout. He found, in the morning, that he 
 was entirely disabled ; and as he gazed upon his 
 swollen foot, he reasoned thus with himself: — 
 Whycnnnot I walk? Here are all the same 
 bones, muscles, and tendons that I had yester- 
 day: I could walk then; why can't I walk now? 
 I certainly can, I will. He resolved he would: 
 and he accordingly rose and attempted to step; 
 but he fell flat on the floor. He rose, and the 
 same train of reasoning again presenting itself, 
 he resolved to make another effort: and it end- 
 ed just as the first had done. And this is a good 
 illustration of the effects of the Fall. The facul- 
 ties of man remain; but the power is gone. To 
 talk about natural ability, because a man retains 
 his natural faculties, is to talk- like men in the 
 dark. The Scripture itsclftakes the impotence 
 of the body to illustrate the condition of the soul. 
 Speaking of fallen men, it says — 'their foolish 
 heart was darkened.' It declares that the whole 
 heart and mind are depraved — so that no physic- 
 al operation can restore them: and accordingly 
 it declares, that it is God thatworkethin us both 
 to will and to do. 
 
 And now let us see man in a third state. All 
 goes wrong — all is out of the right way. All 
 motives to good arc rejected by the understand- 
 ing; the heart is filled with hardness and enmity, 
 and all the appetites are depraved. And here 
 the doctrine of our Confession is, that he is total- 
 ly depraved in all the powers of Itis soul and 
 body. The whole head is sick, the whole heart 
 is faint; and from the crown of his head to the 
 sole ofliis foot there is no soundness in liim. Pre- 
 sent now to him motives to evil, adapted to the 
 state of his mind, and he is led captive by them, 
 under the power of the God of this world. The 
 prince of darkness rulcth in the hearts of the 
 children of disobedience; and if they exclude 
 the influence of God, they cannot exclude that 
 of the devil. Evil thouglits bolt into the mind; 
 they are darts from Apollyon's quiver. 
 
 liutnowthe Confession takes the same man 
 into still another stale; the state of regeneration. 
 God, by his Spirit, changes him. And what is 
 the change? It is in the inner man. It adds 
 no new faculties to his soul; but it changes those 
 which he has. And where is the beginning of 
 this change? In the uiideistanding. The Spir- 
 it enlightens the mind. God shines in his heart. 
 The change proceeds to the affections; and it 
 finally extends to the will. The man now 
 choobes the good he before abhorred, and re- 
 ceives Jesus Christ, whom before he rejected. — 
 The Savior was yesterday as a root out of a dry 
 ground, without form or comeliness; to-day, he 
 is the chief among ten thousand, and altogether 
 lovely. What is the reason of this? Yesterday 
 the man was a natural man: to day he is a spi- 
 ritual man. Yet he is renewed only in part. — 
 The corrupt appetites of his flesh are not wholly 
 eradicated. lie has indeed been created in Je- 
 sus C'lirist unto good works, which God had be- 
 fore ordained Hint lie should walk in them. He 
 
 is not under the law: but he has no promise that 
 the body of sin shall have no remaining influ- 
 ence over him. He is engaged in a warfare; 
 that contest under which Paul groaned, crying, 
 oh!, wretched man that 1 am, whosiiall deliver 
 me: — from what? from the new nature? from a 
 new will? from delight in God? No; but from 
 the old nature which still lingers within him. — 
 He is now not wholly good, and yet not wholly 
 bad. He wills both ways. He feels the influ- 
 ence of opposite motives. He chooses good, yet 
 he does evil. And what says the Scripture of 
 such a man ? 'If I do that which I would not, it- 
 is no more I that do it, but sin, that dwelleth 
 within me.' His sins, thus hated and mourned 
 over, are ascribed to his old nature. The new 
 man says. It was not I that did it — I hate it — I 
 resist it. And this is the struggle in every chris- 
 tian's heart. The will is always free, butit acts 
 under motives. His character is not owing to 
 the controlling power of the will; but his will it- 
 self is controlled by the state of the man, and by 
 his fallen and yet renewed nature. 
 
 Lastly: the Confession takes this man to 
 heaven. There it puts him out of the way of all 
 temptation: his body of sin goes into the grave. 
 He is now free from all shackles, and free to do 
 good and only good forever. And why? There 
 is no temptation: no motive but such as is adap- 
 ted to the state in which he is now placed. Over 
 this man the devil has no power. But for fallen 
 angels, no such deliverance has been provided. 
 They are fallen never to rise. No Redeemer 
 has taken their nature upon him; no sanctifying 
 influence of the Spirit of God can ever reach 
 them; no motive can ever turn them to a right- 
 eous choice. They always make a wrong choice, 
 and persevering in sin, will deserve punishment 
 to all eternity. 
 
 So much for the Confession of Faith, and for the 
 philosophy of the human mind upon this subject. 
 
 I now close, by putting in a paper which, 
 though not my own composition, so well expres- 
 ses my sentiments, tliat I will adopt it as my own. 
 Speaking of the distinction between natural and 
 moral ability, it says: 
 
 Tliis distinction is made by President Edwards, in 
 his excellent treatise on the will — p. 1, s. 4. 
 
 He appears to liave adopted this distinclion rather 
 for the sake of convenience in opposing the Arminian 
 notion of ' free will.' We have often thought, could 
 the good man now live to witness the use now made 
 of it, and the improvements made upon it, he would 
 promptly disown his disciples. Mr. Edwards was a 
 Calvinist of the stricter order, and never would he 
 have predicated on a distinction which he adopted, it 
 is true, but by no means defended as of essential im- 
 portance, propositions like the following: ' Men are 
 as able to love God, make thern new hearts, &c, as 
 they are to walk, go to church, or turn from one direc- 
 tion and.go an opposite one.' We take the liberty, 
 however, to object to the distinction for several reasons 
 which we deem important: 
 
 1. It is an inaccurute use of language. The word 
 ability signifies a power sufficient to perform a thing 
 or design. It is a relative term, and has a relation 
 to something to which it implies competency, as the 
 cause does to the effect. To be competent, is to be 
 
96 
 
 adequate to a thing. Now we ask, is what is called 
 « natural power' in this distinction, merely competent 
 or adequate to a moral action^ The case requires 
 mere inspection, to convince of its absurdity. Can a 
 cause which is merely natural produce a moral effect? 
 Is it not disposition or inclination which gives moral 
 character and accountability to an actionl If not, we 
 might predicate moral and accountable acts of beings 
 irrational, or even inanimate. It is moral principle 
 which affects the moral jqualities of an action. Take 
 this away, and the act is not moral. You take away 
 all competency to it. The power contended for has 
 really no more adequacy in the case, tban if it had no 
 existence. The soul, we admit, is. susceptible of the 
 exercises of love, desire, hatred, &c. Our rational 
 and physical natures are capable of acting in accord- 
 ance. But there is an essential competency prior to 
 all these: the mainspring of the whole machinery — 
 and this is the very power which the distinciion iteelf 
 supposes to be lacking. As well might we predicate 
 power of the watch or clock to move forward and point 
 out the hour of the day without the mainspring, or of 
 the body to breathe without animal life, or of the 
 wheel to move round without the impulse of water, as 
 to say that men can perform moral acts of any 
 kind without the influence of corresponding moral 
 principle. We cannot love God and obey him from 
 such a principle, without a corresponding sense of 
 his loveliness in our hearts. Such a state of heart is 
 prior to all holy exercises; and as this has no existence 
 previous to regeneration, we may as well say that a 
 nonentity has power to act and to produce itself, as to 
 say that men unrenewed have power to love God, 
 make them new hearts, &c. The metaphysics of the 
 Bible would tell us that the love of God, i. e. the na- 
 ture of God, shed abroad in the heart by the Holy 
 Ghost, is the mainspring to holy exercises. Power 
 and yet no competency to a thing is a glaring absurdi- 
 ty — a palpable contradiction. 
 
 2. This distinction, besides its incorrectness, is cal' 
 ciliated to mislead. I shall here simply notice the ef- 
 fect likely to take place with the illiterate part of so- 
 ciety. The plain man, who has been taught to coh- 
 fiider, and very correctly too, the phrases ' man's na- 
 tural state, his state by nature,' and such like, as 
 denoting the whole state of man fallen, including 
 all belonging to him, natural, moral, and physical 
 powers, will conclude, if we say that men have natural 
 power to love God, hate sin, and practise holiness, 
 that aboslute power or competency is intended; and it 
 will require more than ordinary powers of metaphysics 
 to convince him to the contrary. Suppose him to be- 
 lieve the proposition according to the received import 
 
 of language, you make him an Arminian of course 
 
 Nay more; you make him a Sandimanian, a New- 
 Light who denies the special agency of the divine 
 Spirit in order to faith, and love, and holy obedience. 
 Thus the distinction is calculated to create heresy, 
 and has done it too, had we time to produce the in- 
 stances. 
 
 On the other hand, provided this plain man is a 
 Calvinist, he will at once suppose all the foregoing 
 heresies as resulting from the proposition by necessary 
 consequence at least. Hence not only heresy, but 
 animosity and schism, as has already been the case, 
 would result from the favorite distinction. 
 
 3. Besides being incorrect and calculated to mis- 
 lead, it gains nothing for those who adopt it, provided 
 they do not avow the heresies themselves, to which it 
 most naturally leads. The intention of this distinc- 
 tion was originally to answer objections to the Calvin- 
 istic system of absolute grace; but it meets none; it 
 creates at least one, for it is itself a most glaring ab- 
 surdity. Supposing the man who adopts it to admit 
 the total depravity of human nature, as the venerable 
 President Edwards did — suppose him to admit that 
 corrupt moral principle is the mainspring of human 
 
 volitions and acts — that the Spirit's work rn making 
 us inwardly holy, is the sole mainspring to holy ex- 
 ercises — what has he gained) Just nothing at all, but 
 an unavailing power — an incompetent, dead machine, 
 possessing it is true all its parts except a spring of 
 motion — a power — no power. But the distinction is 
 intended to remove difBonlties, to silence cavillers, who 
 say they are excusable for not doing what they have 
 not power to do; and will the invention of an inefficient, 
 incompetent power silence themi Will they be mute 
 at being told that they are a whole machinery adapted to 
 motion, provided a proper efficiency be granted them'! 
 No: they will still cavil at the doctrines of grace, un- 
 til simple truth, without human aid in attempting to 
 cover its supposed deformities, prevails over their re- 
 bellious hearts. Provided the plan is successful in 
 convincing them that their power is greater than it 
 really is, it may cherish and strengthen their pride 
 and prevent their seeking aid of Him who alone is 
 competent. But supposing the objector should probe 
 your meaning and find that your power was incompe- 
 tent, inadequate, inefficient, he would be likely to cal- 
 culate you intended to deceive him. But his objec- 
 tions would remain even with increased force on the 
 discovery. 
 
 4. We object to this distinction, because it is a 
 serious impediment to the successful preaching of 
 the gospel. The success of gospel preaching consists 
 in convincing sinners of their absolute impotency, and 
 thus briging them to depend on divine interference 
 alone for salvation. For when does the sinner come 
 to God for help? Not when he believes that he lias 
 natural power himself; but i( is when, in his own es- 
 timation, he is as dettiute of power to save himself as 
 the Israelites were to part the Red Sea when pursued 
 by the Egypiian hosts. It is wlien in the anguish of 
 his heart, his soul fainting within him, he flies to di- 
 vine aid as bis last alternative. Now to bring sinners 
 to this is the grand end of gospel preaching. A differ- 
 ent kind of preaching may augment numbers, silence 
 the cavils of carnal men, to whom plain truth is offensive ; 
 but it will not humble the natural heart, nor bring men 
 really ' to rest upon Christ alone for salvation as he 
 is offered in the gospel.' But if preaching is success- 
 ful in advancing the interest of the Redeemer, it is 
 that which holds out to view the offence of the cross, 
 humbles the pride of the heart, and claims all the glo- 
 ry of salvation, as due to the sacred Trinity. The 
 more it is calculated to convince of our want of 
 strength, the better adapted to the end. The true gos- 
 pel teaches men what they ate in fact, and points 
 them to the only Power which is adequate lo their 
 case, and when successful in its great end, encourag- 
 es those who in their own estimation have no ia\ght, 
 to depend entirely on him who alone has almighty 
 strength. 
 
 A conviction of absolute impotency, then, is as ne- 
 cessary to our coming to Christ as a conviction of mor- 
 tal disease is necessary to induce us to make prompt 
 application for medical aid. We use plainness of speech 
 here, for we wish to be understood. We most une- 
 quivocally dispute the genuineness of effects produc- 
 ed under that preaching which extols human power, 
 and thus keeps back the offence of the cross. Satan 
 himself would be willing how much we might fill our 
 ranks, provided our preaching were not instrumental 
 in bringing sinners to rest entirely on divine aid for 
 salvation; for it is in this act that a sinner's league 
 with unbelief and Satan is broken off. If genuine 
 reivalvs of religion are brought about, it will be by that 
 faithful, plain, convincing dealing, which leads the 
 soul to cry out, 'Lord, save or I perish.' There 
 
97 
 
 is much preaching which never brings Christ and 
 Belial in collision, and which will always have its de- 
 voted numbers. 
 
 But we are no doubt asked again, how are the ca- 
 vils of unconverted men to be silenced? t answer, 
 provided the power which, by this distinction, is creat- 
 ed for the purpose, is an unavailing one, it cannot do 
 it. Let them once know that the power leaves tiiem 
 as absolutely incompetent to their own salvation as 
 though it had no existence at all, and there is nettling 
 gained. By art we may put matters a little out of 
 sight, and persuade men that Christ and Belial agree 
 better than they really do; but the cavils of sinners 
 against the truth will never subside till their proud 
 hearts are humbled and they reconciled to God. A 
 crucified Savior demands no apology on our part for 
 any supposed deformity which he has in the estima- 
 tion of the carnal mind. He seeks for no accommoda- 
 tion in the case. He is intent upon entire victory, or 
 none at all. To bring man to know and feel what he 
 in reality is, is the object of truth; and wlien this end 
 is gained through the instrumentality of preaching, 
 Christ is triumphant over tlie haughtiness and lofty 
 looks of man. Then the very opposition of nature 
 which renders the sinner unable to come to Christ, is 
 subdued, and he voluntarily surrenders himself into 
 tlic hand of divine mercy. Tiiis is just what the doc- 
 trine of total inability is calculated and intended to 
 ciTect. Satan would rejoice to see it banished from 
 our Theological vocabularies; but banish it he cannot. 
 Let it be preached, should the war between Christ and 
 Belial wax ten thousand times hotter. We will attempt 
 no compromise — we have no apology to make for the 
 naked truth. M. 
 
 For the greater part of my argument, on the 
 will, and the reasons offered for rejecting the 
 distinction between natural and moral ability, I 
 am indebted to Rev. D. Monfort, of Franklin, 
 la. (See Views of Speculative Theology, — Stan- 
 dard, 1832.) His theory is one which I embrac- 
 ed before I came into the ministry, and finding 
 his manner of discussing the subject suited ex- 
 actly to the present crisis, I took the liberty, by 
 his permission, of using it. I am pleased to 
 learn that he intends shortly to favor the christian 
 public with his views on this, and several other 
 subjects in a more extended form. 
 
 I am aware that we are accused of teaching 
 the doctrine of Physical regeneration, but we 
 teach Spiritual regeneration, notPhysical, ' That 
 which is born of the Spirit, is spirit,' as our Lord 
 taught by an illustration taken from the mysteri- 
 ous, impalpable, and irresistble operations of the 
 wind — so that we are passive in regeneration, 
 as our Conf. of Faith teaches, Chap. x. sec. 2. — 
 The inner man is as passive under the Holy 
 Spirit in regeneration, as the outer man is 
 under the operations of the wind; as Lazarus 
 was in the grave; or the man born blind, when 
 Christ opened his eyes. Lazarus, when quicken- 
 ed, came forth freely, the blind man saw volunta- 
 rily, and the regenerated sinner comes to Christ 
 willingly in the day of God's power. 
 
 The facts stated in the Bible and transferred 
 into our Confession of Faith, respecting the 
 Natural man and the Spiritual man, and the 
 theory advanced in my argument respecting the 
 
 will, destroy the theory of Dr. Emmons, which 
 makes God the author of sin, and the theory of 
 Dr. Beecher, which finds nothing amiss in fal- 
 len man but a wrong bias of the will, and the 
 doctrine of Mr. Finney, who teaches that man 
 has ability to change his governing purpose, 
 that is, to make himself a new heart. And this 
 theory of the will, that is, of the man himself 
 making wrong or right choices, sustains the doc- 
 trine of our Church, which teaches that ' God 
 has unchangeably ordained whatsover comes to 
 pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the 
 author of sin, nor is violence offered to the 
 will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or con- 
 tingency of second causes taken away, but ra- 
 ther established.' Con. ch. iii. sec. L 
 
 By starting with the theory of Edwards on 
 the will, Dr. Emmons makes God the efficient 
 cause of all our actions, bad and good, inconsis- 
 tently denying at the same time that God is (he 
 author of sin; and Dr. Beecher gives man the 
 full ability to do all that God requires of 
 him; inconsistenly denying that man can turn 
 himself to God, — a duty which God expressly 
 enjoins. The false philosophy and false me- 
 taphysics of the fathers corrupted their theo- 
 logy. The same is true of New England di- 
 vinity. 
 
 The Westminster Divines understood phil- 
 osophy and metaphysics better, and taught 
 more correctly. Yet these are the men, who, 
 according to Dr. Beecher, saw the subject like 
 half-sighted men, ' as trees walking.' 
 
 Dr. Beecheb now rose and said, that he should re- 
 mark on the reply now delivered by Dr. Wilson, only 
 so far as would be necessary to a just understanding 
 of the subject. 
 
 Dr. Wilson's first excuse for aiding and abetting to 
 call me to the care of a theological seminary, when he 
 knew I was a heretic, is, thai he acted officially, and 
 merely as the moderator of the Board of Directors, 
 But the fact is, that he knew me then to be, in respect 
 to thep cint new in dispute, just v;hat he knows me to 
 be now. He had no evidence of any change in my 
 opinions whatever, and he bad evidence of my being 
 what he now considers a heretic. And yet he acted 
 as moderator, [whose official duty it was to see that 
 nothing wrong was done by the body, if he could 
 prevent it] in making out a call for me to become 
 president of that institution. And he wrote me a let- 
 ter containing the invitation; thus confiding tlie safety 
 of the church to my conscience; believing that if I 
 was a heretic, I should have sense enough of right and 
 wrong to keep out of the situation to which he invited 
 me. What a guardian of the church is this! to send 
 such ajletter to a known heretic, trusting entirely to his 
 own conscience ! And what is the conscience of a 
 heretic? Dr. Wilson ought to have been the very last 
 man to call me by that name. 
 
 But if official duty constrained him to facilitate the 
 action of the board, why did it not equUy constrain 
 him, when I received the call and accepted it? He 
 then did and said many unpleasant tilings. When I 
 came, on his own invitation, official duty became very 
 pliant on my arrival here. It had no longer any stern 
 demands which could not be resisted. I say these 
 
tilings reluctantly, but they ought to be said, for it is the 
 ttulh of the case . 
 
 ■ [Mr. Skillinger here interposed and said, this is not 
 a fair statement of the case; it is an attempt to cast 
 odium on Dr. Wilson, and through him on the ■' whole 
 of us.] 
 
 Dr. Beecher said, if the elder would wait until he 
 was done, he would have a full opportunity to ex- 
 plain. If Dr. B. had made a wrong assertion, he was 
 Teady to take it back. He was glad if the features of 
 •the case admitted of being softened down, and desir- 
 ous that it siiould be so. 
 
 .Dr. VVilson. At the last meeting of t.be Presbytery., 
 I went into a full explanation, until Dr. B. said he was 
 satisfied ; and 1 really never expected to liear anything 
 on that subject again. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. I never said that I was satisfied with 
 the sufficiency of his excuses for first calling me, and 
 then meeting me as he did. I supposed, at first, that 
 he had seen my sermon on Native Depravity, when 
 he called me; and I therefore complained, thai, after 
 having a knowledge of that sermon, and the remem- 
 brance of his conversation held with me in 1817, he 
 should still send me an invitation; and then wlien I 
 came, oppose me. But Dr. Wilson replied, that he 
 had not then seen the sermon, and I admitted that, 
 that statement was satisfactory. But I never declared 
 myself satisfied with Dr. Wilson's explanation as a 
 whole. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. My statement was, that I had never 
 seen his sermon until after the letter was written; and 
 that on seeing and reading it, I immediately resigned 
 my seat in the board. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. I acquitted Dr. Wilson entirely as to 
 that; nor would I be pertinacious on this subject, as it 
 <]oes not go very deep into the merits of the general 
 question. If it were necessary, I could bring witnes- 
 ses to show that Dr. Wilson's course of action was most 
 decisive in favor of my appointment, and that his lan- 
 guage was exulting in the prospect of my being ob- 
 tained. But I will not urge this thing . beyond what 
 equity requires. Ibelieve that the stateof Dr. Wilson's 
 feelings and judgment were both changed before ray 
 arrival; and had he told me so with frankness, when 
 T came upon the ground, I should have had nothing to 
 say. 
 
 JDi. Wilson. Two material witnesses in the case 
 are now dead. I refer to Mr. Kemper and Mr. 
 Brook. 
 
 Dr. Beecher now resumed. Dr. Wilson says fliat 
 he does not know whether, in ecclesiastical law, the 
 slandering of the dead is recognized as an offence for 
 which a man may be held to answer. But if he did 
 not know this, why did he table a charge? Is a min- 
 ister's character such a trifling thing, that a man may 
 publicly bring a charge against it, in a church court, 
 without knowing whether the cliarge will lie ? 
 
 Again: he says, that he cannot yet understand what 
 jt is 1 mean by the doctrine of natural ability. Why 
 then charge me with being a heretic? Jf he did not 
 know what I mean, how could he know I mean heresy? 
 and why not defer his charge till he did know what 
 he said and whereof lie afl[irmed ? 
 
 [Dr. Wilson. 1 understand his proposition very 
 well; but not the explanation he gives of it.] 
 • .Dr. Wilson says, that what the fathers held, is no evi- 
 dence of what the church held. To this I reply, that we 
 have no other evidence in the case, but the testimony 
 of the fathers. And I ask if .testimony is. irrelevant! 
 
 Suppose Dr. Wilson should quote twenty writers of the 
 new school party , to prove the meaning of some pas- 
 sage in my sermon, which I had attempted to wrest in 
 in order to get clear of censure ; and I should plead 
 that it was not according to the faith of the New En- 
 gland churches; would not extracts from standard New 
 England divines be testimoney to the purpose ? It cer- 
 tainly would. What the church hold, the miaittters 
 hold. Their's is the guiding intellect, and the people 
 are led by their opinions. 
 
 But Dr. Wilson says, that the fathers held many er- 
 rors. Supposing they did, and so are of no authority 
 as to the truth of any particular doctrine ; I did not ap- 
 peal to them, to prove the truth of my doctrine ; I on- 
 ly cited them as witnesses, to show what was held by 
 the church in their day; and to that purpose their tes- 
 timony is relevant. It does show what were the 
 tenets of influential minds in all generations. 
 
 But he says, that the title of my sermon, being a 
 sermon on the ' native character of man,' proves that 
 it relates to the subject of original sin. I answer that 
 native constitution, and not native character, is the 
 proper term for original sin; and native character is 
 the result of it. The character of man is first formed 
 by the exercise of it. The distinction is broad and 
 plain, and one that is recognized by all writers on the 
 subject. ■ The sermon on ' native character,' there- 
 fore^ is not a sermon on original -sin, but on actual 
 sin. 
 
 Dr. Wilson says, that I hold all sin to be voluntary; 
 and original sin being voluntary, I therefore deny ori- 
 ginal sin. But all the sin I speak of in ray sermon is 
 sin in adults. This was the whole question between 
 me and ray opponent. I was writing of actual sin, 
 and of that only. And on now looking at the ser- 
 mon, after many years, I am amazed to see how tbs 
 language is nailed down in such a manner that it can- 
 not be wrested so as to apply to original sin, by any 
 possibility. There are some who hold that actual sin 
 in adults is involuntary, and that it lies in something 
 that is behind the wiU. Now I teach that man's per- 
 sonal criminality is that of an actual sinner, whatever 
 may have come from original sin, as the ground and 
 reason of the entire and voluntary perversion of his 
 will ; and that it does not arise from any force or com- 
 pulsion in the nature of a cause to an effect ■;vhich 
 makes sinning inevitable. And this is the language 
 of the church and of the Bible. Instead of denying, 
 I do, by implication, admit original sin. If you take 
 away voluntariness, and admit enmity, then you deny 
 the distinction between actual and original sin, and 
 make all sin actual. It all lies in the black pool. It 
 all arises from some muscular power, which a man can- 
 not act upon any more than a ship can act upon her 
 helm. 
 
 Again, he insists that the opinion of Dr. Twiss is 
 nothing to the purpose. Nothing to the purpose! — 
 Was he not moderator of the Assembly that formed 
 the Confession of Faith? Was he not one of the lea- 
 ding minds in that illustrious constellation of leading 
 minds ? And is his opinion, as a collateral and cotem- 
 poraneous evidence, nothing? When in one docu- 
 ment he speaks, with his companions, of inability, and 
 in another book gives my explication of his meaning, 
 and it turns out to be moral inability, is this to be 
 thrown away, and Dr. Wilson's exposition admitted as 
 the true one? If the question was concerning the 
 Declaration of Independence of the United States, 
 and Dr. Wilson held to one exposition of it, and! to 
 
99 
 
 another, and I can bring writings of Jcfi'eTSoh to show 
 that his poKtical opinions and sentiments correspond 
 with my expositions and contradict Dr. Wilson's, is it 
 nothing to the purpose ? Dr. Twiss is a living exposi- 
 tor of the Confession of Faith, and he holds the same 
 doctrine which I do, in so many words. He taught 
 man's natural ability as clearly as I do; while at the 
 same time he says that 'no mere man, since the fall, 
 is able, in this life, perfectly to keep the command- 
 ments of God' — proving that he understood the terra 
 able to mean morally able. 
 
 Dr. Wilson says the Bible is not te be explained by 
 Presbyterians in their controversies with each other; 
 because its meaning is explained in the creeds. And 
 he has before insisted that the creed is not to be ex- 
 plained. What then, I pray, is to be explained? He 
 and I are not to explain the Bible. Why? Because 
 he and I agree in receiving the Confession of Faith. 
 But we must by no means explain how we understand 
 the Confession. How then, I ask again, is anything 
 to. be understood between us? Are we only to hear 
 the sound thump on our ears, and attach no meaning 
 to it? And how shall we know that we attach the 
 same meaning, to it, if we must not explain? I do not 
 doubt that Dr. Wilson has some meaning about the 
 matter which he has not expressed; but it ought to 
 have been expressed. 
 
 The Dr. says that I take the Bible to demolish my 
 own creed. But I claimed that the Confession teach- 
 es natural ability; and I quoted the Bible to prove it, 
 and 1 said expressly, that I did not appeal from the 
 creed to the Bil)lo, but thati went to the Bible to prove 
 the creed. 
 
 He insists that the parable of the talents does 
 not noenn that man has any natural ability to do 
 his duty. But does it not respect the Jews, and 
 respect gospel privileges? And were these not 
 bestowed to be improved by every man, accord- 
 ing to his several ability? Did not the improve- 
 ment lead to heaven? And did not the neglect 
 of ability, or its misimprovement, lead to hell? — 
 How then can Dr. Wilson say that the parable 
 does not tench ability? 
 
 He represents me as teaching that God oper- 
 ntes on matter and mind by laws. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson. What I said was, that Dr. 
 Beechcr teaches that God operates on matter 
 only by natural laws, and on mind only by moral 
 laws.] 
 
 Dr. Beecher. I hold that God operates on 
 nnatter by his direct omnipotence; and that he 
 operates on mind by the gospel) and by the 
 whole amount of moral means, which he applies 
 to it, called in Scripture the word, the truth, 
 &c. But Dr. Wilson asks, is it to be endured 
 that any man should say that God will exclude 
 himself from immediate, direct operation on 
 mind in regeneration? Why that would be just 
 ns he chooses. He will not, unless it so seems 
 good in his sight; and if it does, he will. The 
 question is whether he does, and we are to bring 
 no a priori conclusions to that question. To the 
 word and to the testimony. What does God 
 say? Dr. Wilson says, that I hold God cannot 
 directly operate on the human mind; and he is 
 awfully borritied that such an idea should ever 
 
 have been advanced. But I did not say any 
 such thing, and never have said it. 
 
 [Mr. Gazley here interposed: Dr. Beecher 
 did say that regeneration is accomplished by 
 the word as an instrument; and that if it is 
 done by an instrument it cannot be done direct- 
 
 Dr. Beecher: I did not say that God cannot 
 act on the human mind directly; nor have I ev- 
 er said that he does so act. I said that no such 
 thing could he advanced philosophically and 
 theoretically as God acting by means and not by 
 means at the same time. I was only interpret- 
 ing what God says about it. I never said that 
 it was impossible for him to do what he would, by 
 direct agency. But I did say, that if he does it 
 directly, th'jn he does not do it medialely. If he 
 docs it by naked omnipotence, then he does not 
 do it by the word as an instrument. For the two 
 things are inconsistent. No doubt God can do 
 eitfier. But he chooses to do one and hot the 
 other. To settle which this is, I go not to phil- 
 osophy and speculation, but to the word of God. 
 If there is any heresy in my opinions on this sub- 
 ject, it is the heresy of the Confession of Faith. 
 My faith is in that position which both the Con- 
 fession and the Catechisms lay down. I advance 
 no theory about it. I stand upon the language 
 of the Confession. If that is not with me, then 
 I must fall. All I say is, that direct action with- 
 out an instrument, and action by the truth, are 
 not the same thing, and cannot co-exist. If a 
 man levels a tree by pushing it down with his 
 naked hand, then he docs not level the tree by 
 chopping it down with an ax. Now the Confes- 
 sion and the word of God say that God converts 
 men by the truth. Here I beg leave to offer, in 
 corroboration of my view, the opinion of Mat- 
 thew Henry in his Commentary on James i. 18. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. Who completed that Com- 
 mentary? for Mr. Henry himself did not extend 
 it so far. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. It was completed by Wright. 
 
 Dr. W. Then this is not Henry's opinion, but 
 Wright's opinion. 
 
 Dr. B. I will read the passage; and then I 
 will quote another which Dr. Wilson will not 
 dispute. 
 
 'Of his own will begat ho us with the word of 
 truti).' Here let us take notice. 1. A true chris- 
 tian is a creature begotten anew., .... 2. Tho 
 original of this good work is iiere declared; it is of 
 God's own will ; not by our skill or power, not from 
 any good foreseen in us, or done by us, but purely 
 from the goodwill and grace of Gorl. 3. Tlie means 
 whereby tliis is effected are pointed out; tho word of 
 truth, that is, the gospel ;as St. Paul expresses it more 
 plainlj', 1st Cor. iv. 15, I have begotten you to Jesus 
 Christ through the gospel. This gospel is indeed a 
 word of truth; or else it could never produce such 
 zeal, such lasting, such great and noble effects. We 
 may rely upon it, and venture our immortal souls 
 upon it. 
 
 I will now quote Matthew Henry's own Com- 
 mentary on John vi. 44: 
 
100 
 
 'No man can como to me except the Father which 
 hath sent me, draw him.' Observe, 1. The nature 
 of the work; it is drawing, which speaks npt a force 
 put upon tiic will, but a change wrought in tho will, 
 whereby of unwilling we are made willing, and a new 
 bias given to the soul, by which it inclines to God.^ 
 This seems to be more than a moral suasion, for by 
 that, itisthepower ofmanlo draw; yet it is not to be 
 called a physical impulse, for it lies out of the road of 
 nature; but he that formed the spirit of man within 
 him by his creating power, and fashions the hearts of 
 men by his providential influence, knows how to new 
 mould the soul, and to alter its bent and temper, and 
 make it conformable to himself and his own will, 
 without doing any wrong to its natural liberty. It is 
 such a drawing as works not only a compliance, but a 
 cheerful compliance, a complacency; draw us and we 
 will run after thee. 
 
 2. The necessity of it. No man in this weak and 
 helpless state, can come to Christ without it. As we 
 cannot do any natural action without the concurrence 
 of common providence, so we cannot do any action, 
 morally good, without the influence of special grace, 
 jn which the new man lives and moves and has its 
 being, as much as the mere man has in the divine 
 providence 
 
 Dr. Wilson has made a distinct avowal, that free 
 agency and moral obligation to obey law do not in- 
 clude any ahUity of any kind. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson — I limited that avowal to man in his 
 fallen state.] 
 
 Dr. Beecher — Yes, so I understood it. We are 
 talking about man in his fallen state. Dr. Wilson then 
 admits, that it requires no ability of any sort iii fallen 
 man, to make him an accountable agent, and a sub- 
 ject of God' moral government. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson — With respect to fallen man, I do.] 
 
 Now it must be admitted that in this avowal Dr. 
 Wilson has the merit of magnanimous honesty. He 
 is fairly out on a subject where, with many a man 
 for an opponent, I should have had to ferret him out. 
 There can at least be no doubt as to what Dr. Wilson 
 does hold. If weare to go to Synod, this point will 
 be clear; and when tho report is published, no man 
 can misunderstand this part of it. It is seldom that we 
 meet a man who would be willing to march right up 
 to such a position, without winking or mystification.* 
 But Dr. Wilson has done it unflinchingly and thor- 
 oughly. Ho interprets the Confession of Faith and 
 the Bible as teaching that God may and does com- 
 mand men to perform natural impossibilities; and 
 justly punishes them forever, for not obeying! though 
 they could no more obey than they could create a 
 world ! And he has riveted the matter by his mental 
 philosophy of the will. Instead of supposing a mind 
 with powers of agency acting freely in view of motives, 
 he supposes the will to be entirley dependent on the 
 constitution and condition of body and mind, and 
 external circumstances; and controlled by these as ab- 
 solutely as straws on the bosom of a river are controll- 
 ed by the motions of the water. I shall go into no 
 
 *Dr. Wilson has written us a note saying that the 
 reporter has not done him justice here. We have 
 made no corrections of the Reporter ourselves, and 
 can allow none, until the whole trial is published. 
 We Bhall then ba governed by our convictions of duty. 
 If one party mends the report, the other may; and 
 we shall hare no end of corrections. Ed. 
 
 discussion of this point. I will otily say, that if the 
 human mind is constituted as he supposes, and pos- 
 sesses no capacity of choice but in the manner he de- 
 cribes, he has certainly proved the natural impossi- 
 bility of man's being anything by the agency of his 
 voluntary powers. But he has proved equally, that 
 such free agency has in it no more ground of accoun- 
 tability, than the flowing of a river, orthe motion of a 
 clock. The will, he says, is free : not as the Fathers, 
 the Confession, and the Bible say, — capable of ac- 
 ting either way in the choice of life or death, — but 
 choice, he says, is free; that is, choice is choice, but 
 necessary under the coercion of external circiim- 
 stances. 
 
 This is the pivot on which the whole question turns. 
 Dr. Wilson holds that free agency and responsibility 
 do not need any ability at all. I hold that they do. 
 For if not, why should God command men more than 
 trees or cattle? Nothing remains in man to give God 
 any hold upon him with law and the sanctions of law. 
 Its awful and eternal curse cannot take hold upon 
 him, nor could there be any need of Christ's coming 
 and dying to deliver him from it. Supposing all men 
 should become oxen, would God order the gospel to 
 be preached to cattle? And if not, why to man, when 
 there is in him ' no ability of any kind' to distinguish 
 him from a stock or a stone? If there is, what is it? 
 I say, that which distinguishes him from a stock is 
 the possession of a natural ability to obey God : al- 
 though! admit that his will to do so is wholly perver- 
 ted. 
 
 There is another felicity about the lucid and thorough 
 manner in which Dr. Wilson has taken his 
 ground. He holds that it is in the creed, and he nails-it 
 down by his philosophy. I have taken the liberty to 
 animadvert upon his ' theory. His theory comes 
 to this; that the will has no alternative but to choose 
 just as it does. Yet he says jthat the will is free. — 
 And it'is free, if he means that choice is choice. — 
 But if man is not able to choose both ways. Dr. 
 Wilson has got a free agency that God never made. 
 If I were captious, I might table a charge against 
 the Doctor for false philosophy. I observe one 
 thing about it: Dr. Emmons and Dr. Wilson both 
 give us the manner in which a free agent is made 
 in the abstract; not how he is. after the fall. Dr. 
 Wilson goes beyond that; he gives us a model beyond 
 the fall. He gives us an account of the free agency 
 of the angel Gabriel in heaven ; and proves that he 
 could not have fallen if there were not some con- 
 dition or state of mind which he could not help: and 
 that Adam fell by a similar fatality. This is the fall- 
 ing of which Dr. Emmonds speaks. It supposes that 
 God cannot make a free agent unless he creates his 
 volitions. The inability which makes the aid of the 
 Holy Ghost needed is in the nature of things. It is 
 the inability of God to make a free agent : a . neces- 
 sary inability of volition withont divine efficiency, un- 
 caused by the fall, and as real in the unsinning as the 
 sinning angels. It has nothing to do with the fall, and 
 Dr. Wilson is out of the record. His free agent 
 makes a choice one way without power of contrary 
 choice, it being a natural impossibility. If Adam 
 had not fallen, he could only have done one thing, as 
 the circumstances of the case had presented them- 
 selves: just as an electric battery gives forth a spark, 
 the moment you present a conductor to it. This is the 
 amount of his scheme. Let circumstances be array- 
 ed'and choice must follow. I say then that Dr. 
 
101 
 
 Wilson is out of the record. He ia talking about bow 
 God made a free agent ; and on bis philosophy God is 
 the author of sin. 
 
 Dr. Wiiaoif — I think Dr. Beecher will now alter 
 his opinion: and not think we can go together so very 
 easily. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. When I cherished that hope, I 
 had not heard Dr. Wilson's philosophy. Oh no: 
 I have done; I knock under; I give up to such 
 a scheme as that! Where is responsibility? Dr. 
 Wilson is as much a slave to inward constitution 
 and surrounding circumstances as a slave can be 
 to any physical cause. I do not mean anything 
 invidious to Dr. Wilson, when I affirm that this 
 is the fatalism of the ancient philosophers, which 
 was denied and opposed by Justin Martyr and 
 the early fathers. These ancient philosophers 
 held an eternal series of cause and effect; and 
 that the will both of gods and men was subject 
 to the control of this series of causes and efiects. 
 And that neither gods nor men could do any- 
 thing, but that one thing which they did: and 
 this from necessity. This scheme is the same 
 in substance with that of the gnostics. It is a 
 scheme of material necessity. Man is held in 
 prison in a poisoned body. It is the scheme, in 
 fact, of the Manicheans; who held that sin was 
 in the substance of the mind. I do not mean to 
 say that his scheme is cither Gnosticism, Man- 
 ichelsm, or Paganism: but what I say is that it 
 goes on the same principle. Infidels take this 
 principle from the system of Dr. Emmons and 
 Dr. Wilson, and they draw fatality from it. [Dr. 
 Wilson says that the inferences of other people 
 from a man's tenets show the true tendency of 
 his doctrine: I do not believe it: but how will 
 he like the application of his own doctrine?] — 
 This is the doctrine of Hume and Priestly, and 
 the modern Universalists. They reason justly, 
 if you give them Dr. Wilson's premises. Then 
 they take the old theory about tastes. What 
 God has put in the mind none can help — when 
 men love sin they cannot help it; and so taking 
 Emmons and Burton on one side and on the 
 other, between the two they box the sinner's ears 
 into infidelity. 
 
 Dr. Wilson. Did I say anything about cre- 
 ated depravity? 
 
 Dr. Beecher. No: you did not: I could show 
 that your scheme leads to that, but I made no 
 such assertion. There are but three theories of 
 the will. One — which makes choice a matter 
 of necessity, by a constitutional series of cause 
 and efTect. That is the fate of the Stoics. — 
 Another is that of Emmons; that man cannot 
 choose as an agent, and that there must be a 
 positive physical cause to create volition: as 
 truly as to create matter. But while he denies 
 fate, and the taste scheme of Burton, where is 
 the cause of volition? It is God. He marches 
 up boldly — as boldly as Dr. Wilson, and avows 
 that God makes sin as he makes holiness. Be- 
 sides these two suppositions there is but one oth- 
 er: viz: that man is a created agent, made ca> 
 
 pable of voluntary action under law, and of 
 choosing life or death: and so capable as to have 
 the whole weightof obligation imposed upon bim. 
 That there is a.pou sto in the soul a ground on 
 which obligation can rest and which makes 
 it right he should be punished fbr sin as for his 
 own act alone: that is what I mean by natural 
 ability; something given to man on the ground 
 of which he is justly responsible. Take this 
 from him and he becomes a machine: or put him 
 in the necessity of circumstances which turn his 
 will about this way and that way, as wind turns 
 a weathercock, and let this doctrine be spoken 
 out and fairly understood and it revolts human 
 nature. I do not say it has this effect upon the 
 speculative student in his closet; but if he gets 
 ultra on the subject; if he comes out with it in 
 his pulpit, and preaches it forever, so that his 
 people get to see and feel what his scheme is, it 
 paralyzes responsibility — it does bring moral 
 death with it. And I know it; it has been 
 preached all around me. I have seen the bottom 
 of human responsibility knocked out; and what 
 was the consequence? The besom of error 
 swept over the land of the pilgrims, carrying 
 holiness with truth before it; and leaving noth- 
 ing behind but an arid waste, where no plant of 
 grace was to be seen. All was silence; all was 
 death; till the^orrect system of human accoun- 
 tability was brought up, and pushed on until it 
 made its way tothe conscience; and then streams 
 broke forth in the desert, and the wilderness blos- 
 somed as the rose. 
 
 Dr. Beecher said : I am now ready to close. 
 
 The first charge to which I had to answer 
 was, that I hold the natural ability of man as a 
 free agent; and teach that it is this which lays a 
 foundation on which God has a right to command, 
 and man is righteously bound to obey, or be pun- 
 ished for disobedience: thereby rendering God's 
 service a reasonable service. That is what I 
 mean by natural ability. Dr. Wilson says that 
 there is no such thing — that there is nothing in 
 the soul which lays a foundation for any possi- 
 bility that man should do what God requires. If 
 I am a heretic it must be on that ground — that 
 man has no ability of any kind to do anything 
 that God requires him to do; in a word, that the 
 Presbyterian church hoists the black flag, and 
 warns no man to enter her door who cannot sub- 
 scribe to this doctrine. 
 
 I then stale man's moral inability: the perver- 
 sion of his natural powers; their aversation from 
 God; and this so strengthened by habit as to be 
 utterly insuperable. I make man's responsibil- 
 ity turn on the voluntary perversion of his free 
 agency; I make the punishment of an eternal 
 hell turn on the same thing. They mould not 
 have Christ to reign over them. They would 
 not come to him that they might have life. — 
 The next point is, the doctrine of original sin, 
 and here — 
 
 1. 1 hold, that in consequence of our alliance 
 with Adam, and of his fall, there is some ground 
 
102 
 
 or occasion for the certainty of actual sin in all 
 his posterity. 
 
 2. That the ground or reason of this certain- 
 ty is some change in the constitution or nature 
 of man, anterior to moral agency. 
 
 That this is not by personal identity of his 
 posterity with Adam, so that they sinnedperson- 
 a!ly in and with him. 
 
 That it is not by transfer of the moral quali- 
 ties of his actual sin to his posterity,, making his 
 action their action, and the qualities of his will 
 the qualities of their will'. 
 
 That it is not the Gnostic doctrine of materi- 
 al or animal depravity. 
 
 That it is not the Manichean doctrine of de- 
 pravity created in the essence of the mind. 
 
 That it is nothing which makes God the plan- 
 ner and designed producer of sin, by a plan and 
 means designed and adapted to that end: or 
 which makes him directly the creator of sin. 
 
 That it is not in any way that makes sin a mat- 
 ter of fatal necessity. 
 
 It was because of the federal, representative 
 relations of Adan, and the social liabilities of his 
 posterity, as explained by Dr. Bishop, that the 
 change toolc place, which is the ground of the 
 certainty of man's universal, entire and actual 
 depravity. And whether it be a mere penal 
 eflfect, or a result of the nature of things, or 
 both, it was the appointment of Heaven, in some 
 way, that so it should be. The fact that man 
 is subject to a nature from which results, certain- 
 ly and universally, total, actual depravity, is the 
 doctrine of original sin. And the manner in 
 which it comes to pass is not the doctrine. The 
 doctrine is the/ad, as it is stated in the fifth of 
 Romans. This bias also, and tendency, is not 
 the same in quality and personal accountability 
 as actual depravity. Yet it is that which makes 
 actual sin certain, in respect to adults, and the 
 atonement and regeneration necessary in respect 
 to those who die in infancy. Edwards distin- 
 guishes carefully; he speaks indeed of actual and 
 original sin as the same, but it is because he con- 
 sidered Adam and his posterity as united by per- 
 sonal identity. 
 
 But in respect to the corruption of nature, 
 which is the ground and reason of actual sin, he 
 speaks with guarded care. It is evil because of 
 its eflFectual tendency to eventuate in actual sin. 
 He felt that if he attached to it sinful qualities, 
 positive moral evil, it w^ould make God the author 
 of sin. And whenyou strikeout personal identity', 
 and transferofquaUties,and involuntary sin in the 
 created substance of the soul or the body, and 
 the compulsory necessity of sinning; and by 
 speaking of the federal head, the covenant of 
 Adam with his posterity and imputation, you 
 mean only the fact of that change by divine ap- 
 pointment included in the whole curse by which 
 all men lost original righteousness and became 
 subjects of a constitution or nature from which 
 results univerasl, actual and entire depravity:- 
 you have the true doctrine of original sin. Nor 
 
 is there one standard writer, nor a minister in 
 New England, to my knowledge, who denies the 
 doctrine. ' The exceedingly evil nature' of 
 Edwards, aside from actual sin by identity, 
 means a certain cause, ground or reason, for the 
 universal sin which, follows. It is certain that 
 something existed anterior to actual sin, as a 
 ground of its certainty. To prove that a man 
 is able to go this way or that, as an explanation 
 of the reason why he goes, against all motive, 
 the wrong way, is nothing to the purpose. Free 
 agency is no explanation of the ground, or rea- 
 son, of its universal and entire perversion. — 
 There is something in man anterior to volunta- 
 ry action, which is the effect of the fall, and the 
 ground or reason of the certain and universal 
 perversion of free agency to sin. And this, in 
 the Confession of Faith, is called original sin. — 
 This cause or occasion is called properly, a de- 
 praved nature: as a good tree and a corrupt tree 
 are called so, in reference to the fruit they bear: 
 with this distinction, that though it operates with 
 universal and absolute certainty, yet it does not 
 destroy that natural liberty of the will of man 
 with which God hath endued it, nor is the will 
 forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature 
 determined to good or evil; nor yet so as there- 
 by is God the author of sin, nor Is violence of- 
 fered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liber- 
 ty and contingency of second causes taken away,, 
 but rather established. 
 
 But if I am asked what is it? Is it in the body?' 
 Or the mind? How does it operate? My an- 
 swer is. I do not know. I seek not to be wise 
 above what is written. I answer only negative- 
 ly: because I do not want to philosophize in the 
 dark, nor attempt to explain the modus operan- 
 di. I have no mental philosophy which ac- 
 counts for it; and men talk without book, when 
 they attempt to explain why man goes forever up 
 stream. Certain things arc negative, and in this 
 Dr. Wilson will also agree. I hold fast to a 
 change in the constitution of man. I cannot 
 tell what it was, nor how it acts, but I know 
 that it is not true, in the sense which gives 
 us personal identity with Adam. In that sense 
 it is not true, that we were ever in him, or sin- 
 ned in him, or fell with him in his first transgres- 
 sion. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson. Do you admit that it was by the 
 imputation of Adam's first sin, and its propaga- 
 tion by ordinary generation ?] 
 
 Dr. Beecher,! don't deny it, and you can't 
 make me a heretic for what 1 don't pretend to 
 affirm or deny. I hold that we have an evil na- 
 ture; but that it is not evil exactly in the same 
 sense in which actual sin is called evil; and it 
 comes upon us not as . the penalty of our own 
 sin, but as the penalty of Adam's sin, and on the 
 principle of his federal character, and our social 
 liabilities as explained by Dr. Bishop and the 
 Biblical Repertory. You may search the works 
 of God with a microscope, and I defy you- to 
 find any such thing as a plan to make sin. You 
 
103 
 
 can'l find in all bis kingdom a manufactory of 
 wickedness which he has built for that particu- 
 lar purpose. You may light up ten thousand 
 suns and search every cavern, and every deep 
 recess, and you can find no such thing. He has 
 indeed established an extensive and glorious 
 manufactory of righteousness, but he has given 
 no law which tempts man to sin, neither doth he 
 tempt any man. His whole government and 
 providence tend the other way. They lead men 
 to repentance; both his afflictive and indulgent 
 providences lead men back to God. There is 
 not the least trace or vestige of anything that 
 God has contrived to make sin with, neith- 
 er is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered 
 to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or con- 
 tingency of second causes taken away, but rather es- 
 tablished. This is my philosophy. But if Dr. 
 Wilson's philosophy does not make a necessity 
 of nature which forces men to sin, and of which 
 God is the author, then I am as unable to un- 
 derstand what he means, as he says he is unable 
 to comprehend what it is I mean by natural 
 ability. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson: I do, to day, understand what 
 he means by natural ability, though I never did 
 before. I understand him now !] 
 
 On the subject of the agency of the Holy 
 Spirit in regeneration, I have already explained 
 my views. What is to be reconciled? Tlic un- 
 willing is to be made willing. I do not deny 
 that in the preparatory work towards this change, 
 God may operate according to the laws of 
 physical nature, by his own direct power, in 
 counteracting the benumbing effects of sin, on 
 man's bodily powers. I do not deny that he 
 may, by a direct influence of his Spirit, excite 
 the mind of a sinner, as he stimulates the 
 imagination of a poet. I have no doubt that he 
 may create great facilities, and that he may 
 give the motionsof mind great additional power. 
 But the Confession of Faith and the Bible both 
 deny that there is any physical mode of re- 
 newing the heart; and whatever may be those 
 auxiliary influences, which accompany the 
 work or prepare for it, I do believe God when 
 he says, that he begets men by the truth. Let 
 God be true, and all doubt is ended. I adopt 
 the words of the Larger Catechism on the sub- 
 ject of effectual calling: ' By his Word and 
 Spirit.' So I hold. And when it is done, it is 
 done. When the log is dragged to the mill by 
 a log chain, then it is dragged by a log chain, 
 and not moved by a man's hand. If God con- 
 verts a sinner by his word and Spirit, it is by his 
 word and Spirit that he converts him, and that is 
 my heresy. 
 Nonr let us hear the Shorter Catechism: 
 ' IIow is the word made effectual to salvation?' — 
 ' God makelh the reading, but especially the preach- 
 ing of the word an effectual means of convincing and 
 converting sinners.' 
 
 That is my faith. An effectual means is the 
 means which does the thing. If a lever put 
 
 under a rock is the means of raising it, then it 
 is the lever which raises it, though the lever 
 be moved by man. Effectual means, are 
 those which produce the effect; and I cannot 
 make plain, more plain. 
 
 As to the charge of hypocricy, in saying that 
 I believed the Confession of Faith to contain 
 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. the 
 truth, I have given what 1 trust, is a satisfactory 
 explanation ; and I have accompanied it by what 
 I hope will be deemedsuflicient proof. It is not of- 
 ten that I notice vague reports: but one I under- 
 stand is circulating in some circles, which it is 
 my duty to contradict. It is reported that I said 
 sneeringly concerning the Confession of Faith: 
 there is no document which means one thing and 
 says another, equal to that. What I may have said 
 jocularly among friends, I cannot tell, and 
 will not be answerable for. But I never ut- 
 tered any such sentiment seriously, because I 
 hold none such. I believe that when the Con- 
 fession speaks of guilt, it does not mean what 
 is now understood by that term, viz. personal 
 desert of punishment; but thnt it means social 
 guilt, liability to punishment in consequence of 
 social relations; and in this sense, and with this 
 reference only, I may have said sportingly, or I 
 may have said seriously, that it says one thing 
 and means another: that is, it says a thing which 
 the word (hen meant, but the words employed, 
 Tjoa), mean another thing. The guilt of Adam's 
 sin, is our liability to punishment for Adam's 
 sin; and punishment means the coming upon 
 us of the penalty which was threatened to 
 him. 
 
 And now I believe I have done with the 
 charge of hjpocrisy. The longer I study the 
 Confession of Faith and Catechism, and the 
 more I compare them with the scriptural proofs 
 there cited, the more I admire that strength of 
 intellect and (hat burning piety, the evidence of 
 which is resplendent throughout the work. — 
 And instead of wishing it remodeled, if I ever 
 refuse to stand up against anvj uch proposition, 
 may my right hand forget itsi unning and my 
 tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. I 
 intend to introduce it, as a text book, in the 
 Theological Seminary, over which I preside. I 
 consider it the most admirable system of com- 
 parative theology which the world ever saw. — 
 While it speaks the truth, it is so constructed 
 as to give a back stroke at errors of all sorts; 
 and I fully believe it furnishes a better founda- 
 tion for a sound theological education, than all 
 the other text books which have ever been ad- 
 opted. 
 
 Dr. Wilson is alarmed at some of the new 
 measures which have been introduced into the 
 church: So am I. Dr. Wilson is afraid of the 
 tendency to arminianism in some modern 
 preaching: So am I. Not indeed among the 
 settled clergy of New-England, nor the settled 
 clergy within the bounds of the Presbyterian 
 Church; but among speculative adventurers. 
 
104 
 
 We live in a day of Ultraism; when the child 
 behaveth himself proudly against the ancient, 
 and when with certain unfledged upstarts, it is 
 reason enough for blowing upon anything with 
 contempt, that the thing is ancient. This spirit, 
 I believe it is the duty of all of us to resist. I 
 for one shall resist it. 
 
 An attempt has been made to identify me 
 with Mr. Finney. Now I had with that 
 gentleman and others a long and arduous con- 
 troversy, which continued, without intermis- 
 sion, for nine days, It was held in a council at 
 New Lebanon. We discussed many points, 
 and we parted without being mutually satisfied 
 in respect to them: and he went about his 
 Lord's work in his own way. Mr. Finney is a 
 man of powerful intellect; he is a holy man; 
 I have prayed with him and wept with him, and 
 have felt the beatings of his great, warm 
 heart before God. And (hose who speak slight- 
 ingly of Mr. Finney, may do well to remember, 
 that there is such a thing as offending 
 God by speaking against his little ones. — 
 Mr. Finney has, since that time, gained knowl- 
 edge by experience. He has reformed some 
 of his measures, which I supposed to be of 
 dangerous tendency, and he is doing, as I hope, 
 mu.ch good, with but few attendant evil con- 
 sequences. When I was in Boston, as many as 
 twenty deacons, or other influential members 
 of the churches, got together, and invited the 
 ministers to meet them; and they proposed that 
 we should send for Mr. Finney. After consulta- 
 tion and discussion, when it came to the vote, 
 every layman, I believe, voted for the measure, 
 and every minister against it. The interposi- 
 tion of the ministers prevented his being sent 
 for, much to the grief of many of the people. 
 Some time after this, Dr. Wisner went to Pro- 
 vidence to labor in a protracted meeting. — 
 There he met Mr. Finney, heard his doctrine, 
 and became acquainted with his .views and 
 measures; and when he returned to Boston, he 
 told the ministers that he was satisfied, and he 
 thought that we ought to yield to the wishes of 
 the churches. We assented accordingly; and 
 then the Union church of Boston, with the ap- 
 probation of the pastors and the other evangelical 
 churches, invited Mr. Finney to come and labor 
 amongst us. When he came to Boston, I re- 
 ceived and treated him as I think Dr. Wilson 
 ought to have received and should have treated 
 me. I gave him the right hand of fellowship, 
 as expressive of my confidence in him, at least 
 till something else should occur to shake it. He 
 committed himself to our advice and guidance; 
 he betrayed nothing of extravagance; he was 
 just as compliant as a lanb. And this I will say, 
 that it will be long before I hear again so much 
 truth, with as little to object to, in the manner 
 of its exhibition, in . the same space of time. 
 He preached no heresy in my hearing; none. — 
 There was one of his measures which I did not 
 entirely approve, and from which I wished him 
 
 to desist, and he did desist. I have considered 
 thus much as due both to myself and Mr. Fin- 
 ney. 
 
 On the doctrine of perfectionism I have but one 
 word to say. The whole charge appears wonde r- 
 ful to me. In support of it. Dr. W., quoted those 
 texts which I bring to prove man's moral inabili- 
 ty, without a word of explanation, or the least re- 
 ference to the fact of my having showed that 
 there were two sorts of inability. He quoted 
 them, with nothing to explain them but the 
 sound of the word; and now, since he has set 
 the example, I wish to try Dr. Wilson in the 
 same way, as to the doctrine of perfectionism. 
 
 According to the Doctor, there is but one sort 
 of inability, and that is a natural inability, S'ich 
 as renders the thing impracticable and impossi- 
 ble. It is declared in I John iii. 9; 'Whosoever 
 is born of God, doth not commit sin, for his seed 
 remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because be 
 is born of God." Now as connof ^always expres- 
 ses A natural inability, and implies an absolute 
 impossibility, we have God hiniself as a witness, 
 that a Christian is under a natural inability, 
 to sin, and that it is absolutely impossible 
 that he should sin. If this is not perfectionism, 
 what is ? Let Dr. Wilson get clear of the gripe 
 of this argument, if he can. 
 
 [Dr. Wilson. That I will do immediately, by 
 adopting the principle Dr. B. himself has laid 
 down. He says we are never to interpret a doc- 
 ument so as unnecessarily to make it contradict 
 itself. John is here comparing those who are 
 born of God with the unregenerate, who commit 
 the sin unto death; and all that John means is, 
 that Christians cannot commit the unpardonable 
 sin, because they are born of God. This is not 
 perfectionism.] 
 
 Dr. Beecher, without farther entering into an 
 argument on this point, proceeded to support, by 
 documentary evidence, the second ground of de- 
 fence which he bad set up: viz. that if he had 
 not succeeded in proving the identity of his 
 views with those expressed in the Confession of 
 Faith, he had at least proved that the difiference 
 between them was such only as is consistent with 
 an honest subscription to the Confession. On 
 this point, he quoted the following extract from 
 Dr. Green's review, in the Christian Advocate, 
 of the sermon called'Tbe Faith once delivered to 
 the Saints:' 
 
 P. 23. 'On ihe statement here given of the 
 chief articles of what Dr. B. denominates the Evange- 
 lical System, we remark, that although it will doubt- 
 less be considered as a. Calvinistic statement, it is nev- 
 ertheless one to which some who are Calvihists, in the 
 strictest and most proper sense of the terra , would 
 not unreservedly subscribe. To one or two articles 
 they would certainly except.' 
 
 P. 36. 'We hope, as this sermon is published under 
 a copy-right, that the printer who holds that right will 
 send a good supply of copies into the south and west, 
 where they are scarcely less needed than at the head- 
 quartersofliberality itself: which, as every body knows, 
 are established in the east.' 
 
lOS 
 
 Here is Dr. Green, the head and pattern of 
 orthodoxj, while marliing the dissent of thestrict- 
 est Calvinists to one or two articles, jet express- 
 ing his hope that a good supply cf my sermon 
 will be sent out to the west. And on the ground 
 of this very sermon , I am to be turned out of the 
 church as a heretic. 
 
 I will now lay before the court part of a let- 
 ter written by Dr. Alexander, of the seminary 
 at Princeton, and which appeared in the Bibli- 
 cal Repertory, published in that town, under the 
 eyes of the professors. 
 
 Dr. Wilson here inquired, on what evidence it 
 was said that this letterwas written by Dr. Alex- 
 ander? 
 
 Dr. Beechcr replied: on the ground of com- 
 mon fame, uncontradicted; asit would have been 
 contradicted, if the fact had been otherwise. 
 
 Dr. Wilson said, that it was understood that 
 the professors at Princeton had entered an ex- 
 press disclaimer as to being held answerable for 
 all articles appearing in that work. 
 
 Mr Brainerd said, that there was one fact 
 which put the authorship of the letter beyond 
 doubt. The Rev. Mr. McCalla, of Philadelphia, 
 had published a severe criticism on the letter un- 
 der the idea'that it was the production of Dr. Alex- 
 ander, at the same time whitewashing Dr. Mil- 
 ler and Dr. Hodge, as not being answera- 
 blefor it;and, in a subsequent number. Dr. Mil- 
 ler and Dr. Hodge had both come out and denied 
 the authorship, without saying or insinuating 
 that the letter had been falsely attributed to Dr. 
 Alexander. 
 
 Dr. Beecher. I shall take the responsibility 
 of reading it as Dr. Alexander's letter. 
 
 And liere we will step out of our way, to express our 
 opinion, respecting creeds and confessions. No so- 
 ciety of a religious kind can exist without them, writ- 
 ten or unwritten. None of the fornnularies are infal- 
 lible, unless so far as they contain the very words of 
 Holy Scriptures; when a man Subscribes a creed, or 
 asserts solemnly to any Confession of Faith, he does 
 it, just as if he had composed it for the occasion, as ex- 
 pressing the opinions which he entertains on the dif- 
 ferent articles of faith which it comprehends. It mat- 
 tersvery little, what the precise form of words may be, 
 in which our assent is given: the understanding of all 
 impartial men will be, that no man can be honest, 
 who adopts, without explicit qualification, a creed 
 
 which contains doctrines which he does not believe. 
 
 To admit this, would render all such instruments and 
 engagements perfectly nugatory; and is repugnant to 
 the moral sense of every unsophisticated mind. But 
 when a man composes a creed for himse|f, he will be 
 ready to acknowledge that it is not infallible; thai, in 
 many respects, the doctrine asserted might have been 
 more clearly expressed, and that his language may not 
 always have been the most appropriate.' 
 
 I now claim, on the doctrine of man's free a- 
 gency, a more exact agreement with the Confes- 
 ion of Faith, than is here required by Dr. Alexan- 
 der. And I think Dr. Wilson will find it hard to 
 claw off and to get so far out of the channel that 
 we shall not float in the same stream. 
 
 14 
 
 As to the doctrine of original sin, let him point 
 out the difference between us, after those points 
 are excluded which he agreesshould be excluded. 
 If there are any discrepancies between us, they 
 must rest upon some one or other of those ex- 
 cluded points. And now, as to the other ques- 
 tion, have the ministers of our church done wri- 
 ting? Shall we have a new test? Or shall we 
 now break bonds, and go cast, west, north, and 
 south, into fragments, because we cannot all 
 come at an exact numerical identity on every 
 point of human belief? I believe that we are 
 now as near to such identity as men can reasona- 
 bly hope to be. And of this I am confident, 
 that the more we pray, the more we shall agree. 
 
 There is one other point on which I must say 
 a few words. Our church constitution makes an 
 accuser responsible in his own person, should he 
 fail in substantiating his accusation; and pro- 
 vides a reaction upon himself of that penal evil 
 which must otherwise have fallen upon the ac- 
 cused. And as a general rule, I accord to it the 
 praise of being both just and expedient. But 
 there may be exceptions,sometimes toitsjustice, 
 and sometimes to its expediency; and in the pre- 
 sent case, I do not believe it will be expedient, 
 or that it is your duty, to punish Dr. Wilson, 
 should you decide that he has failed (o establish 
 the charges. This is wholly a question of doc- 
 trinal differences. There exists no proof of ma- 
 lice on either side. Dr. Wilson's is an honest, 
 though I must think it a mistaken course. His 
 object has been to produce the comparative dev- 
 elopment of truth and heresy. While I pre- 
 tend not to defend the manner in which he has 
 approached this object, I accord to him honestin- 
 teution. Admitting him to have failed in his 
 proof, and thereby to have subjected himself to 
 penal consequences; still, as the points in contro- 
 versy are matters concerning which the Presbyte- 
 rian church is waxing warm, I desire that the 
 decision of them should be as little mixed up 
 with personalities as possible. Should you fix 
 a stigma upon my brother as a false accuser, and 
 the case should go up by appeal, you throw at 
 once afirebrandinto the church. There are ma- 
 ny who love Dr. Wilson, and with good reason; 
 and though many of these might otherwise be 
 willing to acquit me, yet if my acquittal musfbe 
 his condemnation, and must involve the sanction 
 of your sentence upon him, you willat once throw 
 into the equal scale ofjustice all those powerful 
 sympathies which ever cluster round the leader 
 in any cause; and instead of presenting to the 
 higher court a question purely doctrinal and in- 
 tellectual, you bring up one of the most exciting 
 questions which can be agitated, viz. a question 
 of personal character, both his and mine. 
 
 I have never believed that truth will triumph 
 by the force of legislation. Decide as the court 
 may, it will not prevent men's preaching either 
 way. It is no doubt proper and necessary to re- 
 move convicted heretics, if such shall be in your 
 communion. But you can never cramp the in- 
 
106 
 
 lellett of sach people as dwell in this country. 
 You cannot prevent or rej)ress free inquiry. You 
 never will compel men, as with a leaden memory, 
 to retain forever just what was taught them in the 
 nursery. 
 
 I hope the Presbytery will agree with me in 
 the opinions that it is inexpedient to censure my 
 accuser. If you shall decide that he has failed 
 to sustain the charges against me, and if you 
 should think that some act of public justice is due 
 to the man, who openly advances such charges 
 against his brother and cannot prove them, still 
 remember, that this is not the proper body to 
 perform such an act. Let us waive that inVag- 
 ined necessity, and leave the case to Synod, I 
 am not willing to stand here and hear my church 
 bell ring, while his is put to silence. We are not 
 alienated from each other. There is no person- 
 al bitterness between us. We are as ready to 
 see eye to eye, and as ready to draw in the same 
 harness as two men ever were, if we could but 
 agree in our views. And although Dr. Wilson 
 does not now see his way clear to extend his hand 
 to me, it is not certain but that after he has con- 
 ned this matter over; after he has communed 
 with his friends, and above all, after he has com- 
 muned with his God, he may come to a different 
 conclusion. But if you put upon him a sentence 
 of ecclesiastical censure, you make it certain that 
 he never will. 
 
 And now, in conclusion, I throw myself into 
 the hands of the presbytery; and I do so with the 
 same kindness as I feel toward my brother. — 
 There is no sting in my heart. I believe you 
 will do what is right. But if not, and if you lay 
 on me what I consider an unjust censure, I shall 
 appeal. 
 
 Dr. Wilson now rose and said: I shall offer 
 but a very brief reply. The patience of the 
 Court in hearing my several explanations as Dr. 
 Beecher proceeded in his reply, together vtrith 
 my expectation that the whole proceedings will 
 be faithfully reported, supersedes the necessity 
 of any replication by argument. AH I wish to 
 reply to is Dr. B.'s last remark. I am always, I 
 hope, thankfttl to any one for courtesy and kind- 
 ness: but do I apprehend that Dr. Beecher's last 
 rei^rks had that design more towards the speak- 
 er than toward myself. My request to Presby- 
 tery is that they will do their duty: by inflicting 
 punishment wherever it is deserved, without 
 showing favor to any man. I ask no clemency. 
 All I ask is justice. I ask that the rules of our 
 Book of Discipline shall be strictly enforced, on 
 the grounds of justice, truth, purity and the pro- 
 motion of the peace of the Church. The rule 
 is this: 'The prosecutor of a minister shall be 
 previously warned, that if he fail to prove the 
 charges, he must himself be censured as a slaa- 
 derer of the gospel ministry in proportion to the 
 malignancy or rashness that shall appear in the 
 prosecution.' — Dis. ch. v. sec. T. 
 
 If you say that the charges are not sustained',, 
 the book doea not say you shall censure me.. 
 
 There is no Such rule. It says merely, that if 
 you do censure, it shall be in proportion to the 
 malignancy or rslshness which shall appear in 
 the prosecution. I appeal to Dr. Beecher's oWtt 
 statements, and to the good sense of this court, 
 to say whether I have manifested either malig- 
 nity, or rashness. I appeal to the Searcher of 
 hearts on that subject; and I deny that you have 
 any right to censure me, even if you shall decide 
 that the charges have not been sustained; 
 
 Presbytery now took a recess. After the recess 
 the roll was called by the Moderator, and the mem- 
 bers in successiort had an opportunity of delivering 
 their sentiments upon the case. Several availed them- 
 selves of the privilege; but, in most cases, it was 
 waived. The roll being gone through, PresbytSry 
 took a recess until the afternoon. In the afternoon, 
 tiie members of Presbytery were called upon to vote 
 separately on each charge by saying Sustained or 
 Not Sustained. 
 
 The first charge being then read, the vote upon it 
 stood as follows: 
 
 Sustained. — Messrs. Daniel Hayden, Francis Mon- 
 fort, Ludwell G. Gaines, Sayres Gazley, Adrian Anton, 
 J. Burt, Wm. Skillinger, Israel Brown, Peter H. 
 Kethper, A. P. Andrews, Andrew Harvey, William 
 Cumback.— 12. 
 
 Not Sustained — Messrs. Andrew S. Morrison, 
 Thomas J. BiggS, Benjamin Gra,ves, Artemas Bullkrd^ 
 F. Y. Vail, A. T. Kailkin, Augustus Pomeroy, Thom- 
 as Braiiied, George Beecher, Robert Porter, JoBii 
 Archard, Henry Hageman , J. G. Burnet, Brice K. 
 Blair, J. C. Tunis, J. Lyon, W. Carey, J. D. Low, S. 
 Hageman, T. Mitchell, W. Owens, A. P. Bodley, Si- 
 las Woodbury. — 23. 
 
 So the first charge was declared to be not 
 sustained. 
 
 On the second charge the vote stood the same 
 as on the first charge. 
 
 As the facts included in the third charge 
 were admitted by Dr. Beecher, no vote was ta- 
 ken upon it. 
 
 On the fourth, fifth, and sixth charges, the 
 vote stood as follows: 
 
 Sustained — ^Messrs. Hayden, Mohfort, Gainfes, Gaz- 
 ley, Atoii, Kemper-^. 
 
 Not Sustained — Messrs. Morrison, Graves, Kggs, 
 BuUard, Vail, Rankin, Pomeroy, G. fieecher, H. Hag- 
 eman, S. Hageman, Bodely, Porter, Archard, Burnet, 
 Blair, Tunis, Lyon, Gary, Low, Mitchel, Qwens, 
 Woodbury, Burt, Skillinger, Brown, Andrews, Harvey, 
 Brainerd, Cumback. — 29. 
 
 On motion of Prof. Bioes, th6 following min- 
 ute was recorded as the decision of Presbyteigr 
 in the case. 
 
 Resoked, Thit in the opinion of this Presbytery 
 the charges of J.L.Wilson, D.D. against Ly rata Beech- 
 er, D. D. are not sustained for the following reasons? 
 I. As to the charge of deproced nature, it appears 
 in evidenee that Dr. Beecher holds and teaches that in 
 consequence of the fell of Adam and the divinely 
 appointed conbexion of all his posterity with him, 
 man is born with such a constitutiotisl h'la'i to evil th8t 
 his first moral licf and all sub^ej^h^tlt Aidtal act^, Afi- 
 
107 
 
 til regenerated, are invariably sinful; whicli bias to evil 
 is properly denominated a depraved nature, or original 
 sin, as in the standards of our church. 
 
 11. As to the secoud charge, relating to total deprav- 
 ity and the work of the Holy Spirit, Dr. Beecher holds 
 and teaches that this depravity is so entire and in such 
 a sense insuperable, that no man is or ever will be re- 
 generated without the special influence of the Holy 
 Spirit accompanying the word, as expressed in the stan- 
 dards of our church. Larger Catechism, Question 
 155, and Scripture proofs. 
 
 On the subject of ability, Dr. Beecher holds and 
 teaches that fallen man has all the constitutional pow- 
 ers or faculties to constitute moral agency and perfect 
 obligation to obey God, and propriety of rewards and 
 punishments; that the will is not, by any absolute ne- 
 cessity of nature, determined to good or evil, accor- 
 ding, to the Confession of Faith, ch. ix. sec. 1, with 
 Scripture proofs. 
 
 At the same time Dr. Beecher holds and teaches 
 that man by the fall is morally disabled, being so en- 
 tirely and obstinately averse from that which is good, 
 and dead in sin, so that he is not able to convert him- 
 self or prepare himself thereunto. 
 
 The extracts from Dr. Beecher^ sennons brought 
 to sustain the above charges, when taken in their pro- 
 per connexion, and with the limitations famished by 
 the context, do not teach doctrines inconsistent with 
 the Bible and standards of our chinch. 
 
 III. As to the charges of Perfectionittn, slander and 
 hypocrisy, they are altogether constructive and infer- 
 rential, and wholly unsustained by the evidence. 
 
 Presbytery then resolved that they do not de- 
 cide the amount of censure due to Dr. Wilson, 
 but refer the subject to the Synod for their final 
 adjudication. 
 
 Dr. Wilson gave notice that he should appeal 
 to Synod from this decision. 
 
 Messrs. Gaines, Skillinger, Kemper, Cum- 
 back, Aton, Andrews, Harvey, Burt, Brown, 
 Hayden, Monfort, Gazley, gave notice of their 
 dissent and protest against the decision. 
 
 Messrs. Stowe, Rankin, and Brainerd were 
 appointed a committee to defend the above de- 
 cision before the Synod. 
 
 The roll was then called, the minutes read, 
 and Presbytery adjourned, aAer singing and 
 prayer. 
 
C. p. B A R N E S, 
 
 BOOKSELLER AND STATIONER, 
 
 AT THE OHIO BOOK STORE, 
 
 NO. 193, MAIN STREET, CINCINNATI. 
 
 Has constantly on hand, at wholesale and retail, an extensive assortment of Books, in every 
 department of Literature and Science. 
 
 Family Bibles, in every style of binding 
 Comprehensive " " " 
 Pocket " 
 Scott's ConHnentai-y 
 
 Henry's Exposition 
 
 •i vols 
 
 6 vols 
 
 3 vols 
 
 6 vols 
 
 Clarke's Commentary 6 vols 
 David's Psalms 
 Brown's " 
 
 Watts' Psalms and Hymns 
 Testaments, all sizes 
 Calmet's Dicliooary of tlie Bible- 
 Cruden's Concordance 
 Brown's " 
 
 Bunyan's Works 
 
 Home's Introduction to tlie Study of the Scriptures 
 Watson's Body of Divinity 
 Marrow of Modern Divinity 
 Hunter's Sacred Biography 
 iVewton on the Prophecies 
 Buck's Theological Dictionary 
 Mosheim's Church History 
 Jones' " " 
 
 Gregory & Ruler's " 
 Dick's Philosophy of Religion 
 
 " " " Future State 
 
 ^Boston's Fourfold State 
 Fisher's Catechism 
 Home on the Psalms 
 Spiritual Treasury 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. 
 
 A large and complete assortment of 3Iiscellaneous 
 Books, consisting of Histories, Biographies, Travels, 
 Voyages, Memoirs, &;c. 
 
 Classical and Mathematical Books of all kinds, the 
 latest and best editions, suitable for colleges, acade- 
 mies, and high schools. 
 
 Bibles and Hymn Books. Plain, gUt, and embos- 
 sed Polyglott Bibles and Testaments: also, Hymn 
 Books of every description kept constantly on hand. 
 
 NEW BOOKS. 
 
 All the new works of the day as they are issued 
 from the eastern press. 
 
 SCHOOL BOOKS 
 
 Of every description used in the United States. 
 
 PICKET'S IMPROVED SPELLING BOOK 
 
 WILL SHORTLY BE PUBLIStlEn BY 
 
 C . P . BARNES, 
 
 More than thirty years ago, Picket's Juvenilo 
 Spelling Book was presented to tlie public. Few 
 Spelling Books have ever received such general circu- 
 lation. Till- fitness of the work for children has been 
 universally acknowledged. The work now presented, 
 conliiinsall the improvements which the long and prac- 
 tical e.xperiencc of Messrs. Picket, have suggested in 
 their possession. 
 
 The New .luvonile HpollingBook will contain addi- 
 tional matter, winch is so arranged as to enable the 
 publisher to reduce the price to $1 per dozen. It will 
 be printed on good paper, in a plain letter, and in the 
 neatest style, from new stereotype .plates.i-j 
 
 The publisher would desire all teachers who are 
 about to introduce into their schools a book of this na.! 
 ture, to examine the merits of the above work. 
 All orders promptly supplied by the publisher. 
 C. P. Barnes has also constantly on hand a supply 
 of Picket's other publications, viz: 
 Child's Definitions, 
 Juvenile Primer, 
 " Mentor, 
 " Instructor, 
 " Expositor, 
 Introduction to do. 
 English Grammar. 
 Those works are extensively used, and are highly 
 recommended by practical teachers and men of ac- 
 knowledged ability. 
 
 He presents two or three opinions from amoDg 
 many — 
 
 From TVm. H. McfjIlLJfy, Professor of Philology, 
 Miami Universily, Oxford, Ohio, 1835. — 'I have 
 throughly examined all the school books witten by 
 Messrs. Picket, of Cincinnati, and consider them 
 far superior to any other works I have ever seen. 
 Their Introduction to their Expositor supplies a desid- 
 eratum. I know of no school book that could be sub- 
 stituted in its place, without detriment to the cause of 
 education.' 
 
 JFrum Rev. Dr. jlydeloU, President of the Wood- 
 ward High School, Cincinnati, 1835. — ' I have exam- 
 ined Messrs. Picket's Introduction to their Expositor, 
 with much care, and can therefore speak of it with 
 confidence. It is most judiciously adapted to make 
 accurate as well as thorough English scholars. Their 
 prevailing principle is to teach by analysis; this I am 
 convinced from my own experience, is the best mode 
 in jinictice; it is certainly the most philosophical. — 
 The moral tendency of the selections for reading, 
 gives still additional value to the work. I wish it the 
 greatest success, and shall profit by it in the education 
 of my own children. I will only add the wish, that 
 there should be manifest in all books published forthe^ 
 rising ge'neration, the same evidence of sound se/ioiar- 
 ship, and conscientious regard for their best interests, 
 as are shown in the Introduction, and all other works 
 of Messrs. Picket.' 
 
 From Alexander Kinmont, .1. M. Professor of the 
 Classics and .Mathematics, Cincinnati. — ' I have look- 
 ed over all 3Icssrs. Pickets school-books, and have al- 
 ready expressed my highest approbation of them. I 
 have reflected much on the plan of their last work, 
 the Introduction to their Expositor, I am satisSetl 
 that they could not have written a work more needed 
 than this. The analysis and just sense of words, are 
 most important to bo attended to in every stage of ed- 
 ucation, and I am sensible that the strength of the hu- 
 man understanding is often impaired by negligence in 
 this respect. One-half of all the false ideas prevalent, 
 IS founded on a misconception of terms. Children 
 should be accustomed to take words in pieces, and to 
 indicate the separate values of the parts. Hereinas 
 laid a foundation of a sound discrimination. There is 
 a radical defect in English systems of education on 
 tins head, which displays itself in wordiness of our 
 writers, a great impediment to knowledge. lam 
 glad of this Book : it supplies a desideratum in school 
 instruction^ 
 

 5t2C 
 
 '^r^«flif% 
 
 M 
 
 -min 
 
 . ^.rer^ES 
 
 
 
 ^