ler, it was admitted! Was this justice, or was it both irregular and partial? The letter of Dr. Phillips was recent and relevant; the others related to matters in 1828, and on subjects not in debate,

I was also prevented from reading an article from a news paper, conducted by responsible publishers, which I intro duced to rebut some of Dr. B.'s informal and irrelevant matter. Was not this partiality towards the accused? and injustice to the prosecutor? With these facts I connect the facts specified in my 11, 12, 13, and 14 reasons for appeal.

Before I proceed to examine the charges permit me, if possi ble, to remove a strong prejudice which has been excited in favor of Dr. B. as an accused person, and against me as his accuser. It has been proclaimed and published from one end of the land to the other, that Dr. Beecher has been tried on a charge of heresy. Now look through the whole of the charges and you will see that this is utterly false.

All the noise and smoke and dust raised by the cry of heresy has been raised by Dr. B. and his friends, to excite popular sympathy for him, and cast odium upon me.

It has been the policy of the New School whenever complaint has been made about errors in the Church, to raise the cry of heresy. And an honest, conscientious prosecutor is to be cried down as a "heresy-hunter."

The comburendo heretico-the fires of Smithfield-the flames and painted devils of the "Auto da Fe," have been kindled up and depicted before every imagination: all for popular effect.

In my charges I have not used the word heresy. It was enough for me to state the false doctrines of which I complained and leave the court to judge whether they were tolerated opinions, or heresy, or "damnable heresy;" whether they were dangerous errors which strike at the vitals of religion, are industriously spread, and infer deposition or suspension.

But there are errors of a minor character, that do not amount to heresy; are they to be let alone? The discipline says, No. The Presbytery must exercise discipline to amend the offender and remove the offence. This Synod have decided that a man shall be disciplined if he disturb the church by doubtful words. And when words and phrases are specified under a charge of preaching contrary to the standards of the Church, is the Church to be dissolved in tears, and the world to be shocked, and a complainant put down by the cry of heresy, which the accused raises around his own ears? Suppose a man should preach that the civil magistrate ought to exercise power in matters of religion or that immersion is the proper mode of baptism, or that the ordination of a minister is by the Bishop and not by the Presbytery; or suppose he should preach against a learned ministry or the doc

C

trine of election. Would he be tolerated in the Presbyterian Church? The time has been when he would not. Would he be denounced as a heretic? No.

In examining the charges, however, you will find something worse than all this. Yet I have not cried heresy; but left the Court to decide. (See dis. ch. v. sec. 13, 14, 15.) These rules the Presbytery disregarded. An additional proof of their neglect of duty and another reason for my appeal.

I proceed now to examine the charges, and the evidence by which they are sustained.

What has been conceded?

1. Dr. B. conceded that he was the author of the sermons brought as evidence to sustain the charges.

2. That he had also preached the same doctrines contained in these sermons in the Second Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, and,

3. That the sermon on Dependence and free agency was preached at the time he was about to enter the Presbyterian Church, in prospect of becoming the pastor of the second Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, and also teacher of theology in Lane Seminary. Having made these concessions he put in the plea of not guilty. On what point then were we at issue before the Court? Not on the matters of fact, but on the matter of offence. "I have," says Dr. B. "published and preached as has been alleged, in the charges, but I have committed no crime in so doing; I plead not guilty, viz:-I plead justification."

Now, sir, let us examine the charges and the evidence.

This

is no difficult task, as I have no evidence, but what is contained in Dr. Beecher's sermons and concessions, and my quotations are acknowledged to be correct.

I. I charge Dr. Beecher with propagating doctrines contrary to the word of God, and the Standards of the Presbyterian Church on the subject of the depraved nature of man.

Specifications. The Scriptures and our Standards teach on the subject of a depraved nature,

1st. That a corrupted nature is conveyed to all the posterity of Adam descending from him by ordinary generation.

2d. That from original corruption all actual transgressions proceed.

3d. That all the natural descendants of Adam are conceived and born in sin.

4th. That original sin binds the descendants of Adam over to the wrath of God.

5th. That the fall of Adam brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, so as we are by nature children of wrath and bound slaves to Satan.

In opposition to this Dr. Beecher teaches,

1st. That the depravity of man is voluntary.

2d. That neither a depraved nor holy nature are possible without understanding, conscience, and choice.

3d. That a depraved nature cannot exist without voluntary agency.

4th. That whatever may be the early constitution of man there is nothing in it and nothing withheld from it, which renders disobedience unavoidable.

5th. That the first sin in every man is free, and might have been and ought to have been avoided.

6th. That if man is depraved by nature, it is a voluntary nature that is depraved.

7th. That this is according to the Bible. "They go astray as soon as they be born"—that is in early life; how early, so as to deserve punishment, God only knows.

According to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, our first parents sinned in eating the forbidden fruit-by this sin they became wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body, and became dead in sin. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed to all their posterity—and the same death in sin and corrupt nature conveyed; from this origi nal sin do proceed actual transgressions; original sin brings guilt and binds over to the wrath of God; original sin makes the pos terity of Adam by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world and that which is to come.

We are led here to contemplate our first parents as the root of all mankind, all mankind as the branches springing from this root. The root is dead to all good, and wholly corrupt in all faculties and parts; from this corruption the branches are utterly disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil-a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Why? Because the fruit grows on the branches and the branches are as corrupt as the root. But Dr. Beecher says, this is all a mistake. "Fountains may be polluted and pour forth unwholesome streams; trees may be corrupt and produce deadly fruit; animals may be venomous and propagate their kind; but all these are irrational. Man cannot be so depraved, because his nature includes choice: all sin in him is voluntary; neither a holy nor depraved nature are possible without understanding, conscience and choice; a deprayed nature can no more exist without voluntary agency than a material nature can exist without solidity; the first sin in every man is free, and might have been avoided-whatever effect the fall of man may have had on his race, there is nothing in it, and nothing withheld from it, which renders disobedience unavoidable-"They go astray as soon as they be born"-that is in early life -how early, so as to deserve punishment, God only knows."

Here, sir, Dr. B. and the standards of our church are the very antipodes of each other. According to Dr. Beecher we are under a mistake. He has undertaken to correct us. Is the mistake and the correction the same? Does the language agree? Do the propositions agree? Can any possible explanations make them agree? How then has Dr. Beecher attempted to escape from the force of the charge, and the relevancy of the evidence?

1. He attempts to escape by mis- stating the charge. He says, "it seems that I am charged with teaching that infants when born, are as pure as the angels before God's throne. If this be the charge, the proof is irrelevant. My sermon teaches no such thing.

Now, sir, was it honest for Dr. Beecher thus to mis-state the charge and then deny the relevancy of the proof? The charge is not that he teaches infants are pure,-but that they are neither holy nor unholy, neither good nor bad, and the proof goes to that point fully.

2. He attempts to escape by a more reckless assertion. He affirms that "his whole discourse on the native character of man, has respect to adult man and to adult man only, original sin, I did not touch it." The very title of the sermon contradicts these assertions. "Native!" what is "native?" Is it not original?-produced by nature---something born with us--conferred by birth? What is it to be by nature "children of wrath?" And was Paul speaking of "adult man only?"

The whole passage to which I have referred in the sermon contradiets Dr. Beecher's assertion. Let every one hear and judge. "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 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 be

low, 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 any other animal. A depraved nature can no more exist without voluntary agency, and accountability, than a material nature can exist without solidity and extension. Whatever effect therefore, the fall of man may have had on his race, it has not had the effect to render it impossible for man to love God religiously, and whatever may be the early constitution of man, there is nothing in it, and nothing withheld from it which renders disobedience 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. 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,

This

THEN, IS A STATE OF THE AFFECTIONS, IN A VOLUNTARY ACCOUNTABLE CREATURE, AT VARIANCE WITH DIVINE REQUIREMENT FROM THE BEGINNING OF ACCOUNTABILITY."

What, sir, is all this about fountains and trees and animals, pouring forth, producing, propagating,---what all this about a holy or depraved nature, the commencement of accountability, the early stages of life, the fall of man, the early constitution of man, and the perversion of the scripture, "they go astray as soon as they be born," if "original sin was not touched," if "the whole discourse had respect to adult man, and adult man only?"

3. He attempts to escape by the doctrine of 'social liabilities.' But, unhappily for him, this doctrine stands opposed to his