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 circumstances of the case, I was led to that opinion. Rankin. What were the circumstances of the case? -Ans. The published sentiments of Dr. B. and the place where it was uttered. Dr. Wilson. Was not Dr. B. at that time making an effort to prevent synod from sustaining my complaint? Ans. That is my impression now, but I cannot say positively. [Read to witness and approved.] The Presbytery then adjourned till to-mor row. Wednesday morning.-Presbytery 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 wished Mr. Biggs to state what he knew on the subject-whether any perfectionists were in attendance 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 tendencies that way.—Ans. I 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. W. Were not the statements you made to me calculated to impress my mind with the belief that the students who manifested such tendencies to perfectionism, were led to place themselves under Dr. B.'s instruction, in consequence of his published views of theology? Ans. I have no recollection that they were. Dr. Beecher. Did you ever hear any one of the students 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 common to inquiring minds, in the investigation of a subject, 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 the subject of Christian Character, and in opposition to the doctrine of perfection?-Ans. I 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 parties. 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 certified of the fact. To which I here with affix my signature, TH. I. BIGGS. The following witnesses were then duly sworn and their testimony recorded as follows: Francis Monfort'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 received 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 mittee to examine certain sermons of Dr. B. others against Presbytery for not appointing a com Dr. W. What were 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 Presbytery, did not Dr. B. express his approbation of the standards of the church with the reservation of putting upon them his interpretation?--Ans. So I understood 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 interpretation, than the one I put upon it? Ans. I heard nothing said about interpretation. (Read, &c.) Mr. Aton's testimony. specified in the charges-I recollect, distinctly, that in the time and place (Dr. Beecher admits that the time, place and audience 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 nothing but the truth. I heard no qualifications. (Read, &c.) Mr. Gaines' testimony. think I should have remembered such qualifications, had they been made. Dr. Wilson. What was the declaration in Presbytery on the same subject?—Ans. I do not recollect. (Read, &c.) F. 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 explanation at the time. When Dr. Wilson was replying, 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 declarations 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. I 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 attached to the terms when the Con. of F. was written, the difficulty was entirely removed. He added, that he now believed the Con. of F. contained the truth, and I thought he said the whole truth. He raised his hands to his bosom, and, said he believed it to be one of the best expositions of the meaning of the Scripture. I 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. I 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 standing 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 spoken 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 printed copy of the letter?-Ans. The printed. 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 compendium 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 extracts from the Perfectionist. They have three ways of becoming perfect. The first is, they believe themselves able to obey God and do so. When pushed with diffiuclties in that view of the subject, they represent themselves as being, by the literal imputation 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 represent 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. Is not the whole theory of the perfectionists 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 requires and say they do it.-Ans. 1 will not pretend to state all. The fact is shown from their own conduct, that they do violate the laws of God; those passages of scripture are opposed to them, which state that Christians, though not constrained by natural necessity do sin. Dr. W. What practices of the Perfectionists contradict 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. I Dr. W. Are you personally and intimately acquainted with any persons of that denomination?—Ans. never saw one. Dr. W. What do they mean by the literal imputations 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 righteousness to believers, deny the doctrine of man's nat ural ability?-Ans. In speculation they do; in practice I believe most of them assume it to be true. Mr. Gasley. Did not the system originate with those who held the doctrine of natural ability?-Ans. From the region where it originated, I should think it probable; but I have no certain knowledge. Mr. Rankin. Does not their system teach that man has by nature both natural and moral ability to do all that God requires of him?-Ans. Strictly speaking, I think not; they do not deny that men have by nature an aversion to God, which has been called inability, which makes regeneration necessary. Mr. Alton. What do those Calvinists mean who teach the literal imputation of Christ's righteousness? -Ans. There is a class of professed Calvinists who seem to teach the doctrine of imputation, the same doctrine as the perfectionists'; but this I would not 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 completed, The first charge was read a second time, and as it referred to certain passages in Dr. Beecher's sermons, the clerk was about to read the 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 be read, for certain parts of it were also cited. Professor BIGGs could not consent that mere ly isolated passages should be read; he should be mcst unwilling to have his own character tried by garbled extracts selected from his writings; he could in that manner prove every man in the Presbytery a heretic. Let the connexion of the passages with their context be seen; let their bearing be understood; let the presbytery receive the same impression as the audience had received, before whom the sermons were delivered; 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 cbvious difference between the reading of the Confession and the reading of the sermon. The Confession of Faith was not introduced before the court as evidence; 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 the connexion. Besides, in one part of the charge the sermons at large were cited, without any particular passages being specified. Dr. WILSON admitted, on reflection, that the cases of the Confession and the Sermon were not analogous. He had no objection to the reading of the sermons entire; it could do no harm; but he wished the court to bear in mind that there was such a thing as insinuating the most deadly poison into the most wholesome aliment. He was ready to admit that the sermons (and he had read them attentively, many times,) did contain many things that were excellent: but the ground of his charge was that the author had placed in the very midst of them the most deleterious poison. Were Dr. W. invited to partake of a dish of what appeared to be food of the most nutritious kind, and after commencing, and finding it to be delicious and wholesome, he should suddenly come to a deposite of arsenic, he should stop, and eat no more, unless he could with certainty pass over that portion of the preparation and complete his meal with what was not poisoned. Let the whole be read: the court, he was well assured, would be able to separate the precious from the vile. Dr. BEECHER said it was his right to have the documents referred to in the charges read entire. The MODERATOR admitted this: but expressed a doubt whether the present was the proper stage in the proceedings at which this right might be exercised. In his defence Dr. B. might very properly give the whole sermon in ar 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 extracts he had made, Dr. B. was ready to admit their accuracy: at least, he took it for granted the passages had been copied correctly. But it was certainly the fair and correct mode of proceeding to allow the body of the sermon, as delivered, to make its own impression, and then the force of the passages excepted to could be better judged of. In no well constructed sermon could a single passage give the effect of the whole. A sermon was heretical, or otherwise according to the combined and intended results of all its parts taken together. In every propend aimed at, and all the parts were so arrangerly written sermon, the combined effect was the ed and so made to follow each other, as best to secure that end. Let the sermon tell its own story: and then the court might make what analysis 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 referred, viz: 'Dependence and Free Agency,' a sermon delivered in Andover Theological Seminary, July 16, 1832. Dr. WILSON stated that he wished to lay before the Presbytery, certain information showing on what grounds he had been induced to state that the Perfectionists claimed Dr. B. as strengthening their hypothesis. The MODERATOR inquired whether Dr. W. wished to introduce this information as testimony in support of any one of the charges he had peferred? 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. WILSON gave notice that he took exception 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 himself 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 testimony on the part of the charge. SILAS WOODBURY was examined, and his testimony is as follows: of for him to obtain from synod an attested copy their decision in the case; which would be attended with great delay. But if this letter should now be received, the delay and inconvenience would be avoided. It would be remembered 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 appeared 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 supposing that specification to be proved, Dr. Wilson meant to avail himself of it with a view to show that the sermon in question had been written and shaped in reference to Dr. B.'s coming into the Presbyterian church. The date of the sermon would speak for itself, without any concession. 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. Dr. WILSON inquired, whether Mr. Weed was versation and confessions of sin in prayer?-Ans. a member of the church. Yes. Mr. WEED was thereupon duly sworn; and his testimony being taken, was as follows: Dr. Beecher. How long was you a member of the Lane Seminary?-Ans. Two years and a half. Dr. B. How long a member of the Theological Class? Ans. One year. Dr. B. Was there, 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 tending 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 the city. (Weed resided on Walnut Hills, at the Seminary.) Dr. W. Who was the 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. I think I know. I think that in one of the lectures of Dr. Beecher, the discussion came up, whether an individual could at the same time be under the exercise 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 the form of questions 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 express 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 with this discussion (perhaps at the next lecture) that I gave a regular discussion of this subject?-Aus. I think it was the 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 to 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 their 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 believed that any person in this life attained to that state where they had only holy affections and none sinful? Ans. Not an individual; they all discarded it. Dr. B. Did their sense of their own depravity correspond with that of other Christians in their con Mr. Brainerd. Did you ever hear that Dr. Beecher was suspected of perfectionism, until you heard it it until yesterday, that Dr. Beecher was charged or from Dr. Wilson's charges?—Ans. I never heard of suspected of perfectionism. (Read, &c.) Dr. WILSON then addressed the court as follows: Moderator-The important and blessed ends of church government and discipline can only be attained by a wise and faithful administration. In the hand of church officers, the Lord Jesus Christ has placed the government of his king-dom on earth; and I 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 Lord, when solemnly convened as a court of Christ ministerially and authoritatively to determine not only cases of conscience and matters of practice, but to decide controversies of faith; and their decisions, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission.† Of all the subjects brought before a church court for adjudication, none 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 clect. The whole history of the church proves that no crime ever committed has been so complicated, so hard to be detected, so difficult 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 possessed more talent, manifested more zeal, exhibited more perseverance, or exerted greater numerical and pecuniary power, and gained a more elevated popular applause, than some falso teachers. And this we have reason to believe will continue to be the case till the day of the Lord cometh that shall burn as an oven;' till 'the sons of Levi shall be purified,' 'the sanctu *Confession of Faith, ch. xxx. p. 129. + Ibid. p. 132. Matthew xxiv. 24. |