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, I might cite you to the state of the church in the time of Jereboam, in the days of Ahab, and the period which elapsed between the reign of Josiah and the eleventh year 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 Jerusalem. 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 dazzling 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 simplicity 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 interest to the church of Christ: doctrines which are parts of a system wholly subversive of the gospel of God: doctrines which have been propagated by a zeal and talent worthy of a better cause: and the propagation of which has deeply convulsed and shaken into disunion the Presbyterian 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 decision: and these I 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 by 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 others; and when he has felt deeply, his language has been plain, and has strongly expressed the feelings 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 your files: whether they are anonymous, or over responsible names: whether they are so placed that they will

be comc-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 inspecting 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 charges has 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 impressions made upon the human mind. I feel persuaded 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 whatever may have been the spirit I have manifested when again and again placed at your 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 I occupy? I have manifested no impatience under much needless delay: I have treated the court with due deference, and the man whose theological sentiments I cannot approve, 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 decision 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 moderate talents, low attainments, and of bad moral character, there would be little, perhaps no difficulty 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 what effect I know not) that Dr. Beecher by a long life of correct conduct, and by the diligent promulgation of what he believes to be religious truth, has acquired a large capital in character and reputation on which it has been supposed that he could live in the west, notwithstanding 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 before crossing the Appalachian. On this point I shall refer the court to what was written in New

England, touching the manner of his acquiring this capital, 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 was not owing to the opposition he has had to encounter on this side the mountains, but was incurred in the land from which he emigrated. I shall beg to call the attention of the presbytery 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 submitted 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 views expressed in the letters of Dr. Beecher and Dr. Woods 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 evidence of anything. 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. BRAINERD said, that if the letters were read as anonymous, and were introduced merely as a part of Dr. Wilson's argument, he 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. Wilson replied that he introduced them to prove that Dr. B. had not brought all that amount of capital into the west which he had alleged, and which he represented Dr. W. as the instrument of curtailing.

Dr. Beecher replied, he was perfectly willing that the extracts should be read; because he was not willing it should be supposed he was afraid of having this or anything else that could be produced read before the whole world: but he believed the admission of them to be wholly irregular. Neither Dr. Wilson nor himself was here to be tried on the point whether Dr. B. did or did not bring with him into the west the whole of the capital he had possessed in the cast. What if he did? or what if he did not? The thing was wholly outre. Yet he desired Dr. W. might be indulged to read it: he must take the liberty, however, of saying that it was wholly irrelevant

to the trial.

The Moderator thought the reading had better be allowed; Dr. B. would have an opportunity of speaking of its irrelevancy when his defence

was in order.

Dr. Wilson replied, that he wished to introduce nothing irrelevant; nor should 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 christian 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, that the ministers of the orthodox Congregational church, and the ministers of the 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 discovery in season, or that he did not seasonably feel its influence to have saved unbroken the harmony of his native state, and the peace of the surrounding region! For, whence came those charges of physical depravity, and physical regeneration, and of making God the author of sin, which certainly did not arise without his knowledge, and which have grieved his brethren for years! Whence came that labored effort a few years since, to make a new creed or confession of faith, for the state? who introduced it to the General Association, or advised to that measure, to the grief and agitation of many minds, if as Dr. Beecher supposes, we are all cordially agreed in every one of the doctrines of the bible. Again, Dr. B. 'doubts not that controversy, which the generation to come might not we might so live, as to leave the church in a blaze of live to see extinguished.' And what I ask, has prevented the blaze of controversy for ten years past, but the forbearance of those, who, though assailed on every side, have chosen to make almost any sacrifice for peace? And what now prevents a blaze of controversy, that many generations will not see extinguished, unless those who adhere to the faith of their fathers, are willing to see themselves, and what they esteem the truth trampled in the dust? Let Dr. Beecher view the discovery, that there is a great difference, in 'the the subject on all sides. But he has at length made eye of heaven, in the eye of man, and in our own eye, the appearance of a great pacification, or a great conon a death bed; and on the record of eternity, between flagration, achieved by our instrumentality." He 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. Beecher then, 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 of religion, 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.

Let Dr.

Another consideration is derived from the 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 remarks, from Dr. Beecher, come too late in the day and they imply an incorrect view of the subject. They imply that the divisions and alienations are occasioned 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. Beecher'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 probably 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 letters on the benefits or duty of union, though very full of feeling, will not reach the case. Some example 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 existence; those who have kept straight forward in the doctrines, 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 mentioned 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 within just that period, according to this writer, that the troubles and disturbances of the churches of New England on the subject of the new Divinity had been experienced. This coincidence of date gave the more authenticity to the statements of the Edwardean.

Dr. WILSON now proceeded to read from a printed Letter to Dr. Beecher, on the influence 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 churches 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 them. 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 sinners 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 advocates 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 expressly undervalue the old; from the fact, that they pertinaciously adhere to their alleged improvements, although they know they are unacceptable to a large portion of their brethren, and have excited animosities and divisions; and from the fact, that they seize every occasion to diffuse their principles, and to introduce men who preach them, at every open door.-My complaint against you, sir, is, that you have acted 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 frankness, 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 resembles, in its prominent features and bearing, Wesleyanism; a strange mingling of evangelical doctrine with Arminian speculations; a system, if such it may be called, which the orthodox of New England have tending to produce spurious conversions. It certainlong believed to be subversive of the gospel, and ly has some variations from that system, however, which I need not point out. It professedly embraces the atonement, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, 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 the dead, alleging that we have heretofore killed and salvation; even professing to resuscitate them from 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 before--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 influence of the Spirit in renovating the heart, are so ex

the sentiments of Unitarians. Did Dr. Green say that Dr. Beecher was a Calvinist? No.What Dr. Green attempts to show is that Dr. B.'s 'Select System' contains sentiments to which no strict Calvinist, no strict Arminian can subscribe: 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 reject.' And he calls it evangelical to prevent circumlocution. Now I claim the right of calling this 'Select System' by a more appropriate name. And as Dr. B. is extremely anxious to be considered 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 substance of doctrine,' admitting the primary propositions, and rejecting the secondary as unwarranted and obsolete explanations. According to others, liberal Calvinism is the stepping stone to Pelagian perfection. In my opinion, liberal Calvinism 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 Characteristics.' 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 Geneva? It placed a Neologian in the very seat of Calvin. What has liberal Calvinism done in America? It has undermined and almost annihilated the Saybrook Platform in New England: it has divided, distracted, and almost ruined the Presbyterian church under the care of the General Assembly: it has exalted unto high places men whose talents and opinions are inimical to the dearest interests of truth. It has palmed upon the east and west and south, such talented and liberal spirits as Duncan and Flint and Clapp! And does Dr. Beecher consider it applause to be called a liberal Calvinist? Yes sir, in this he glories. And in language which cannot be mistaken, he declares that nothing has done more to eclipse the Sun of Righteousness than 'old dead orthodoxy.' He tells you that as a congregationalist in New England, his creed was the Assembly's Shorter Catechism and the Saybrook Platform; that as a Presbyterian his creed is our Confession of Faith; and at the same time he declares, that there is nothing in these charges on the subject of erroneous doctrine, but

what he has preached and published from ten to 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 perseveringly 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, overlooked the errors of the 'Select System,' and pronounced Dr. Beecher a Calvinist in so many words; what weight ought such a declaration to have with you, on a trial held eleven years afterwards? 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 "select 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 decision, is the claim that is set up on the subject of interpretation. Let us see what this claim of interpretation is. I quote from Dr. Beecher's work entitled, 'The Causes and Remedy of Scepticism,' Lecture 2d. pp. 24 to 28.

With these remarks in view, I proceed to observe, that 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 also, once familiar, would now, without explanation, inculcate sentiments which are not scriptural, which the framers did not believe, and the creeds were never intended to teach.

*

*

*

Of course they appear rather as insulated, independent, abstract propositions, than 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 alienated are reconciled and the guilty are pardoned; and though as abstract truths correctly expounded, according to the intention of the framers, they inculcate the system of doctrines contained in the Holy Scriptures, and though, as landmarks and boundaries between 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 exigencies of the day in which we live, mere skeletons of