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 relation in which they stand to Adam their representative and first father. As to the first sin in any man, there are none who deny that it is voluntary. But our standards 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 judgment. 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 nature from which they proceed, then that 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 that 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 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. 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 the ground for thy sake'? Still there is a wide difference between the relation which these inferior beings sustain to Adam, and that which his own children sustain to him. But according to the sermon, this is not Man, by his fall into a state of 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 where into 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 indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly that continually; which is commonly called Original is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and Sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions. Q. What do we pray for in the first petition? A. In the first petition (which is, Hallowed be thy name) we pray, that God would enable us and others to glorify him 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 be 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 the 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 prepare themselves for being converted. They are wholly indisposed and unable, from the fall, to do either. But the framers of this 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 pray for; for there they teach the church that she is to ask God to make her both able and willing to keep his commandments. And I have cited these passages to 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 argued, 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 perfectly clear, that our standards deny in a fallen man both ability and will to do any thing spiritually good. Dr. W. next read again the 2d specification.[See it on 1st page.] He then read an extract from Dr. Beecher's sermon on Dependence and Free Agency -p. 11. The sinner can be accountable, then, and he is accountable, for his impenitence and unbelief, though he will not turn, and God may never turn him, because he is able and only unwilling to do what God commands, 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 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. Here the question naturally arises, How does it happen that such multitudes of the human family suffer so much as they do previous to the possession of the knowledge, conscience, and volition which is declared to be essential to all sin? He then read from pages 19 and 23. And the more clear the light of his conviction shines, the more distinct is the sinner's perception, that he is not destitute of capacity-but inflexibly unwilling 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 without which no one ever submitted to God, what does he do? When he pours the daylight of omniscience upon the soul, and 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 the will perverted, and obstinately persisting in its wicked choice; and in the day of his power, all he accomplishes is, to make the sinner 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 remedial system. Whereas ability, commensurate with requirement, is the equitable and everlasting foundation of the moral government of God. p. 19. The facts in the case are just the other way. doctrine of man's free agency and natural ability as The the ground of obligation and guilt, and of his impotency of will, by reason of sin, has been the received doctrine of the orthodox church in all ages. p. 23. To prove that this is the doctrine of the orthodox church, we have here a long array of names of men the most of whom never so much as professed to embrace our confession. And not a single item from that book which Dr. Beecher so loudly eulogized and pressed with so much emphasis 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 effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are farther sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion 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 strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, 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 by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened. ch. xiv. sec. 1. Also the Larger Catechism, question 72: Q. 72. What is justifying faith? A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and word of God, whereby he, being convinced of 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 gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation. 11, 19, and 29. [See above pp. 11 and 19.] He then read from Dr. Beecher's sermon pp. One would think that a subject of God's glorious government, who can, but will not obey him, might appear to himself and to the universe much more accountable, and much more guilty, in the day of judgment, 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 voluntary but incorrigible in rebellion? p. 29. to punish the innocent and the helpless, would In answer to this, it might be said that for God exhibit his character only in the light of a tyrant. 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 standards which contains the assertion that all capacity of obedience has been annihilated by the sin of Adam? And here I may remark, that the disciples of the new school, when speaking on the subject of original sin, either deny or carica ture it. Dr. W. here read from Dr. Beecher'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 faculties, and placed in such circumstances, as to render it practicable for them to do whatever God requires; should inflict, literally, the entire penalty of disobedreasonable that he should require it; and fit that he foundation for government by law, and for rewards and ience such ability is here intended, as lays a perfect punishment according to deeds. morning; closed with prayer. presbytery met and opened with prayer.. Dr. Wilson read the 3d charge.. [See it on 1st page.] Also the Confession of Faith, ch. vi. sec. 2, 4. ch. ix. 3. L. C. ques. 25, [quoted above, 149, 190—S. C. ques. 101, 103. [quoted above.] II. 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 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 into a state of 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. 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 commandments of God: but doth 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 indisposition that is in ourselves and all men to honor God aright, we pray, that God would, by his grace, enable and incline us and others to know, to ackknowledge, and highly to esteem him, his titles, attributes, ordinances, word, works, and whatsoever he is pleased to make himself known by; and to glorify him in thought, word, and deed: that he would prevent and remove atheism, ignorance, idolatry, profaneness, 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. Beecher's sermon: When he pours the daylight of omniscence upon the soul, and comes to search out what is amiss, and put in order that which is out of the way, what impedi ment 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; and in the day of his power, all he accomplishes is, to make the sinner willing. p. 19. The idea here conveyed is, that the Spirit of God makes a sinner willing in no other way than by presenting truth to his mind in a clearer manner 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 doctrine, the devils must be perfectly sinless, ever since the first sin which 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 helis both able and willing there can be no sin. And how can there be?The conclusion is perfectly logical. It is entirely irrefragable, and follows by necessary consequence 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 before presbytery and recorded touching that to read the testimony which has been taken fact. The testimony was here read accordingly.[See it on first page.] After listening to this testimony I suppose there can be no doubt of the truth of the statement that some of the perfectionists were inthe fact, and if the leaven of that heresy was not mates of Lane Seminary. For if this was not operating there, and if no fear was entertained that it might increase and thereby affect 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 witnesses met with it elsewhere. And what says Mr. Weed: that although the students expressed no decided opinion in favor of that system in presence of Dr. Beecher; yet he knew of many who avowed to each other the opinion that every exercise of the mind was either entirely holy or entirely sinful. If we are to credit his word, and no one thinks of doubting it, then the fact is established not only from Dr. Beecher's finding it necessary to deliver a set lecture in opposition to those sentiments; but from the fact that many of the students avowed them. the propriety of young men in a theological semNo one will deny inary investigating every subject of a theological kind. That is all right and proper. But when we have it in evidence that many of them received and avowed the sentiment, that every exercise of the mind is either entirely holy or entirely sinful, does it not show that they denied any such warfare in the bosom of a christian as is spoken of in the Confession of Faith and in the Scriptures. God forbid that I should speak a word against christian perfection. I well know that it is one of the 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 attainment; and while I can say that I delight in the law of God after the inward man, I am nevertheless constrained to add, that I see another law in my members which wars against this law of 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 deliver me from the body of this death! Now I would ask if I had full ability before I was converted, 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 members; and who shall deliver me? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord, we 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 Seminary, or by the perfectionists of New Haven. are com With respect to these perfectionists, let me do them justice. They are for the most part highly talented men, and men of amiable dispositions; 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 the 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 theological 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. I neveralleged it as any offence in Dr. Beecher. And I introduced it merely to show that Dr. Beecher's sentiments, whatever he might have intended, do lead directly to such results. No man will pretend to blame him for warning his students 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 cultivated minds not only, but of very devotional feeling, have understood, and have perceived that it does lead to such consequences. If Dr. Beecher had come plainly up and openly renounced 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 confided in him to the adop tion of such opinions, he nevertheless repudiated and condemned them, this would have been consistent 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. All can see who have eyes to see, the perfect incongruity. 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 emphatically glad tidings of redemption from sin, and Christianity is distinguished from the dispensation which preceded it, chiefly by the fact that it brings in everlasting righteousness. Hence We believe that sinners are not Christians-we object not to calling some of them Jewish saints, or sinful believers, or unconverted disciples, or servants of God, as distinguished from sons-but we affirm that they are out of Christ; for he that abideth in him, sinneth not-he that sinneth, hath not seen him, neither 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 respects of good feeling) should fall into sentiments like these and should be so confident in the maintaining 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: B. I understand you profess to be perfect, how is this? Ans. Christ is made unto me wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. In the Lord have I righteousness and strength. I will greatly rejoice 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 HIM. 1 Cor. i. 30. Isa. xlv. 24., lxi. 10. Col. ii. 10. B. But don't you think we ought to have a righteousness of our own? Ans. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. For about to establish their own righteousness, have not they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.Not having mine own righteousness, which is the law. but that which is through the faith of Christ, the rightcousness which is of God by faith. Isa. Ixiv. 6. Rom x. 3. Phil. iii. 9. B. I have always understood that there is no perfection in this life? Ye are 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. witnesses and GOD ALSO, how HOLILY, and JUSTLY, and UNBLAMEABLY we behaved ourselves among you that believe. Be ye followers of me, even as I also 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 think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet NOT I, but Christ liveth in me. 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. God we boast all the day long, and praise his name forever. What have we that we have not received; In now if we receive all as a free gift, why should we Ans. With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, 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 published throughout the whole city, how great things Jesus had done unto him. No man when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed, but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart. I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not concealed thy loving-kindness and thy truth from the great congregation. Rom. x. 10. Mark v. 19. Luke viii. 16, 39. Psal. 1. 10. This speaks language which cannot be misunderstood. Whatever may be their conceptions with respect to the reformation, they give the Reformers no credit save for having produced a reform in that which was anti-christianity; and they assert that God then raised up others who have produced a true reformation, 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, that 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 opposite scheme and avow themselves perfectionists. Let them publicly abandon their whole system; or let go forward like honest men, and boldly carry it them out to its results. Lest it should be supposed that the perfectionists have done Dr. Beecher injustice, by associating his name with that of Mr. Finney, I will show how his course was viewed in New England, by some quotations from the letter of Mr. Rand: Another reason why you are reckoned as a decisive advocate of new principles is, the associations you have voluntarily formed. And here we judge according 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 theoriser 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 circumstances 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 Dr. Beecher was in New York, on his way to the west, he is understood to have 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 his coming to Boston till he finally left it? I answer, without hesitation, 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 receive me; otherwise I must decline.' The question was submitted to the pastors assembled. No very decisive answer was given by most, I believe; but Drs. Beecher and Wisner expressed their doubts of the expediency of the measure. But their doubts were soon after removed; and he came, with their express approbation, 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 central 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 the preacher. In these movements, Dr. Beecher and in perfect concert with him, though he was always Wisner were more prominent and active than all the lic his full accordance with views which had been adothers; and Dr. Beecher repeatedly declared in pub vanced. p. 14. I have read this to show that it is not without reason Dr. Beecher was connected by the perfectionists with Dr. Taylor and Mr. Finney.The system held by them all is substantially the same, though they do not all express it so fully 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 2d 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 Ist he was not prepared to deny this when he wrote specification. [See on 1st page.] He said that 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 |