truth compared with the system clothed and beautified, and inspired with life, as it exists and operates in the word of God. Unhappily also, some of the most important truths they inculcate are, in their exposition, so twisted in with the reigning philosophy of the day, as to be in the popular apprehension identified 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, has in this manner accomplished. Good men have contended for theories, as if they were vital to the system, and regarded as heretical those who received the doctrime of the Bible and only rejected their philosophy.

*

*

*

It is my deliberate opinion thatthe false philosophy which has been employed for the exposition of the Calvinistic system, has done more to obstruct the march of christianity, and to paralyze the saving power of the Gospel, and to raise up and organize around the church, the unnumbered 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 personal identity, by which the posterity of Adam are distinct from or confounded with their ancestor, and the principles of personal accountability and desert of punishment, as men are made accountable and punishable for his conduct, or become liable to sin and misery, as a universal consequence. The nature of sin and holiness, considered as material 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 accountability. And above all, the doctrines of the decrees of God, and the universal certainty of all events to his foreknowledge, as they are either unexplained or explained by a false philosophy.

To which may be added the nature of the atonement and its extent, and the doctrines of election and reprobation as they shine in the Bible, or through the medium of a perverting philosophy. Whatever of these philosophical theories appertained to the system during the arduous conflict for civil and religious liberty, 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 has passed away, and the nature of mind and moral government is better understood, and the numbers who think and will think for themselves multiply, these repellencies of false philosophy have steadily increased, and will increase, till that which is adventitious and false is relinquished-and the truth is preached in its purity and unbroken power. 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 empty, and where it will not, in his judgment produce those effects, which popular preaching was de-, signed to accomplish, must be stricken out or explained away.

I did indeed understand him to say at one time that he only claimed the right of interpreting these passages of the Confession, as the

church herself had interpreted them; but 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 principles have been settled and thrown into the form of a confession, 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 become ministers and rulers in her connexion, are required to receive that confession ex animo, without 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 standards, but simply proceed to compare the lanThe standards are considered by her as a straight guage and conduct of individuals therewith.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 alongside the straight rule, and then the discrepancy will at once be obvious to all.

Dr. Beecher in his sermon, with a view to which references are made both in the body of prove its orthodoxy, refers to certain authorities; the discourse itself and in the notes. These authorities consist either of what are called, by some, standard writers or standard adjudications. There is, however, but one adjudication mentioned, and that is by the Synod of Dort. 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 Faith, and but a single quotation from any Presbyterian minister. Why this long array of names? Why minister. Why this long array of names? Why are we told of Justin Martyn, of Origen, of Cyprian, of Jerome, of Bernard and the Synod of Dort? Why are we referred to Calvin and Bellamy and Hopkins and Smalley and West and Strong and Dwight, neither of whom ever adopted our standards, or preached or published in conformity with them? Unhappily, one presbyterian minister, and that as sound a man, and as ripe a scholar as is to be found in any age, I mean Dr. Witherspoon, 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 Martyn, and Origen, and Cyprian, and Bernard, but according to the interpretation put upon them by our seminaries. And why are these quoted? It is according to the old fashion, which prevail

any soberminded man believe they would compromise the essential truths of salvation?

Take another case. The Assembly of Divines, of Westminster, was at first composed of Episcopalians, Erastians, Independents and Presbyterians. I know not that any of the Anabaptists, Neonomians, or Antinomians were members. The parliament sent an order 'that the Assembly of Divines and others, should forthwith confer, and treat among themselves, of such a discipline and government as may be most agreeable 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 be independent, 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 Presbyterial form of church government was adopted. I find no case of compromise, but in regard to the Solemn League and Covenant, The Scots' commissioners were instructed 'to promote the extirpation of popery, prelacy, heresy, schisms, scepticism and idolatry, and to endeavor an union between the two kingdoms, in one confession of faith, one form of church government, and one directory of worship.'

The solemn league and covenant was to pave the way for all this, and was to be considered the safeguard of religion and liberty. This league was adopted in Scotland, none opposing it but the King's commissioners. When it was presented to the two Houses of Parliament, they referred it to the Assembly of Divines, where it met with opposition.

'Dr. Featly declared he durst not abjure prelacy absolutely, because he had sworn to obey his bishop in all things lawful and honest, and therefore proposed to qualify the second article thus: "I will endeavor the extirpation of popery, and all anti-christian, tyrannical, or independent prelacy;" but it was carried against him. Dr. Burgess objected to several articles, and was not without some difficulty persuaded to subscribe, after he had been suspended.' This looks very much like the days of compromise, does it not? Yet, there was a compromise. Mr. Gataker, and many others, declared for primitive episcopacy, or for one stated president, with his presbyters, to govern every church, and refused to subscribe till a parenthesis was inserted, declaring what sort of prelacy was to be abjured.

The Scots, who had been intrdouced into the Assembly, were for abjuring episcopacy as simply unlawful, 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 open for a latitude of interpretation. Here was a compromise. And what was this door of latitude of interpretation?' It was this: The English inserted the phrase, of reforming according to the word of God;' by which they thought themselves secure 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 assistance of the Scots in a war which they were carrying on in defence of civil and religious liberty. As your reading is much more extensive and minute than mine,

I beg you to point out the instances where compromises were made, and a latitude of interpretation allowed on points of doctrine. I believe it will be a difficult 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 every 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 contrary, 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 different explanations of some of the most important doctrines of the Westmininster Confession,' as Dr. Bishop affirms. What have these different explanations to do with the Confession of Faith? If men do not adopt the Confession, it is obvious their opinions 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 published a sermon on Imputation. When its orthodoxy was questioned, I wanted my sermon laid side by side with the Confession of Faith. The editor of the New York Evangelist reviewed that sermon; and in the course of his review, what does he say? That Dr. Woods advised his pupils, 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. BRIGGS inquired for the copy of the Evangelist, to which Dr. Wilson referred. But the Dr. replied that he had only a borrowed сору, which was not now in his possession.

The editor of the Evangelist says, that he with me and I with him as to the sense of agrees the standards; but that I and all who hold in sentiment with me are absurd. Now I think that the editor is quite as orthodox as those who, while they contradict the 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. He comes plump up to the mark, and speaks out what he means.

I

To sum up what I have to say on this subject, deny the justice of this claim of interpretation for the following reasons:

1st. Because when a confession of faith is settled, interpretation is at an end; until it becomes unsettled, and a resolution is formed to re-consider and alter it.

2d. Because no one is compelled to adopt the Confession of Faith; and those who do are

bound to adopt it in its obvious, unexplained

sense.

3d. Where the right of interpretation is claimed and exercised, it introduces endless disputes; 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 giving 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 Balch, Davis, Stone, Craighead, and the Cumberland Presbyterians. 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 real 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.

pugn

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 imthe 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 posed or expected, that brethren in such a situation 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?

sup

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 that many 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 decidedly erroneous. Of these, I will give you two as a specimen; and one of these, in the selfsame words, is contained in Dr. Beecher's sermon on the native character of man. The proposition is that God could not make either Adam or any other creature either holy or unholy. And the sentiment is, that where either has been as yet no choice, there can be nothing in the creature either good or bad. And what says Dr. Beecher in his sermon? He declares less there is understanding, conscience, and a that no action can be either holy or unholy, unchoice. 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 court 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 decision, 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, ch. vi. sects. 3, 4, 6:

II. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt

of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.

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.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

Also the Larger Catechism, questions 26, 27: Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

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 mankind?

A. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath, bound slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come.

He next read a portion of Dr. Beecher's sermon on the native character of man:

A depraved 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 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 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 disobeys from the commencement of his accountability. 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 the 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 the time arrives that it becomes the duty of man to love God more than the creature, he does in fact love the creature more than God-does most freely and most wickedly set his affections on things below, and refuse to set them on things above, and that his depravity consists in this state of the affections. For this universal concurrence of man in preferring the creature to the Creator, there 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 have a depraved nature, than other animal. A depraved nature can no more exist without voluntary agency, and accountability, than a material nature can exist without solidity and extenWhatever effect, therefore, the fall of man may have had on his race, it has not had the effect to

sion.

any

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 unavoidable, and obedience impossible. The first sin in every man is free, and might have been, and ought to have been, avoided. At the time, whenever it is, that it first becomes the duty of man to be religious, he refuses, and refuses in the possession of such 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 voluntary 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. They go astray as soon 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. NATIVE DEPRAVITY, THEN, IS A STATE OF THE AFFECTIONS, IN A VOLUNTARY ACCOUNTABLE CREATURE, AT VARI

6

6

ANCE WITH DIVINE REQUIREMENT FROM THE BEGINNING OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

The preceding part of this sermon was intended to prove that man is not religious by nature. It will 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 the original proposition has been sustained, this paragraph is introduced for the 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 writer is, that there is a period in human existence when the creature is neither good nor bad. Now the question is, whether this sentiment does or does not conicide with the standards of our church? Is it not at variance with them? The question must be answered in the affirmanay, does it not positively contradict them? 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 government of God is such as fits them neither for heaven nor for hell; for, according to Dr. Beecher they are neither holy nor sinful. In contradiction to which, I might as easily prove, according to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, and the faith of all sound Calvinists, that they are under condemnation, although they have not sinned according to the similitude of Adam's transgression. Our standards keep up a constant distinction between original sin, the turpitude conveyd by it, and the punishment incurred previous to the time of volition on the one hand, and actual sin on the other, as proceeding from the depraved