God's word. What is its true sense is, in case of dispute, to be settled by the courts above; but we have agreed to submit to it and be bound by it; and if we do not like the final decision of the supreme judicatory, no course is left but to go out of the church. For I deny and repudiate all right of private judgment in opposition to the public decision of the whole church."

We should be sorry to put Dr. Beecher to the trouble of making a seventh public effort to explain his sentiments on this subject indeed, we think he has succeeded at last in making them sufficiently intelligible. On connecting himself with the Presbyterian Church, he adopts her Confession of Faith, it would seem, "not merely as a human formula, but as an admitted epitome of what the Bible teaches," leaving the sense of this document, in cases of dispute, to be authoritatively determined by her highest ecclesiastical judicatories. He must henceforth regard this Confession, not as "a mere human composition," but "as God's word," Dr. Wilson's reservation, so far as it is consistent with God's word, coming, as he concedes, too late, for in the very act of receiving it as the symbol of his faith, its substantial accordance with God's word, is understood to be agreed upon and settled. That is to say, before it is agreed upon and settled what the Confession means, it is agreed upon and settled, (we are not told how,) that, whatever the Confession means, it means precisely what the Bible means: and afterwards, in cases of dispute about the meaning of the Confession, this is to be authoritatively determined, in the last resort, by a vote of the General Assembly, which decision is to be regarded as obligatory and final. In fine, and to put the matter beyond the possibility of misconstruction, Dr. Beecher denies and repudiates, in so many words, "all right of private judgment, in opposition to the public decision of the whole church." Did a Papist ever do more? for Papists also recognise the right of appeal from the Pope to a general council. "Yes, but Dr. Beecher can go out of the church.'" So he can; and so also can the Papist go out of the church," and, after doing so, he is free as the air. The question is, Can Dr. Beecher exercise the Protestant right of private judgment while in the church? He admits, if we understand him aright, that he CANNOT. Dr. Beecher may say in reply, perhaps, that it is none of our business: and it is none, we allow, except simply to record the fact.

66

So much for the jurisdiction of the court.

6

The first important position which Dr. Wilson takes in opposition to Dr. Beecher is, that the latter had lost his reputation for a sound and thorough Orthodoxy, before leaving this part of the country; that, while here, he was generally supposed to belong to, or at least to favor the New Haven School, the newest school of all. His principal authorities for this alleged fact, are some anonymous "Letters on the Present State and Probable Results of Theological Speculations in Connecticut," published over the signature "An Edwardean," and Mr. Rand's "Letter to Dr. Beecher on the Influence of his Ministry in Boston." The author of the first mentioned pamphlet, alluding to Dr. Beecher's Letters to Dr. Woods, says:

"These letters contain some pathetic remarks on the benefits of union, and the evils of alienation. But these remarks, from Dr. Beecher, come too late in the day, and they imply an incorrect view of the subject. They imply that the divisions and alienations are occasioned by the opponents of Dr. Taylor, whereas they are chargeable wholly to his friends, and himself. It is presumed that some transactions, which took place ten years ago, are not now present to Dr. Beecher's recollection. The days and nights he has spent with Dr. Taylor in maturing and bringing forward this very system, which makes all the disturbance; and the warnings they then received from an intimate friend, who was sometimes present, and who pointed out to them these very consequences, have probably passed, in some degree, into oblivion. There is no doubt, that if Dr. Beecher would, even now, set himself to undo, what, by his countenance he has done in this matter, the breach would, in a great measure, be healed. But for him now to write letters on the benefits or duty of union, though very full of feeling, will not reach the case. Some example with precept is needful. And especially, let him not attempt now, to cast the odium of this separation on those who have done nothing to produce it, and who have, from the beginning, deprecated its existence; those who have kept straight forward in the doctrines, in which they have always found consolation, and by which they would administer it to others."

Mr. Rand speaks still more plainly.

My complaint against you, Sir, is, that you have acted fully with other leaders in this matter; but not with that open avowal of your object, which was to be expected from your general reputation for frankness, and from your Christian profession.

"Of this new scheme of doctrine, which I have said I cannot stay to exhibit at length, it is requisite I should give a synopsis. VOL. XIX. 3D S. VOL. I. NO. I.

16

Perhaps I cannot better characterize it in a few words, than by saying, that it resembles, in its prominent features and bearing, Wesleyanism; a strange mingling of evangelical doctrine with Arminian speculations; a system, if such it may be called, which the Orthodox of New England have long believed to be subversive of the Gospel, and tending to produce spurious conversions. It certainly has some variations from that system, however, which I need not point out. It professedly embraces the atonement, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the personality and offices of the Spirit, depravity, regeneration, justification, and the other doctrines of grace. Its distinctive feature is, that it abundantly inculcates human activity and ability in the affair of salvation, even professing to resuscitate them from the dead, alleging that we have heretofore killed and buried them. Holding that sinners, though depraved, have power to convert themselves, it proposes the minute and direct steps by which they may effect it, content with a general allusion now and then to the necessity of a divine influence to aid and persuade them.

"I only mean to say, that in New England the impression is strong and deep, that you have fully preached among us the theology above described; that while Dr. Taylor and others have written, and reasoned, and philosophized, and mysticized, you have rendered the same system palpable and practical in your preaching and ministrations, subserving their cause far more effectually than they have done themselves."

On the other side Dr. Beecher submitted to the Presbytery letters which he had received, more than seven years ago, from Dr. Green and Dr. Miller, and also the official letter of invitation to the professorship in the Lane Seminary which he now holds, signed by Dr. Wilson himself. These letters, though they contain strong expressions of respect and confidence, prove but little; as it is understood that the writers of them, on being better informed, have materially altered their minds in regard to the implications and tendencies of Dr. Beecher's doctrines and measures. Professor Stowe is his best witness, who deposed, and, for aught we know to the contrary, correctly, that Dr. Beecher's reputation and influence among the Orthodox of New England were never greater than at the moment of his leaving; that he was not understood to go all lengths either with Dr. Taylor, or Mr. Finney; and that he had but "three open and declared assailants of public character," Thomas Whittemore, Moses Thatcher, and Asa Rand. But who is this "Rev. Artemas Bullard," who testifies so flippantly?

"For nearly five years I was Agent of the Massachusetts Sunday School Union, before Dr. Beecher was called to the West, and for several years a member of Dr. B.'s church in Boston. I have visited nearly every orthodox Congregational minister in Massachusetts, and a great portion of all in the New England States. Among all these I know the reputation of Dr. B. had been uniformly rising till he left. There was no minister in New England so uniformly dreaded and hated by Unitarians and Universalists as Dr. B. I was in the church meeting when the question was discussed whether Dr. B should be dismissed to come here. The main reason urged why he should not come, by members of the church, was, that he never had so much influence in the orthodox community as then.

"Dr. WILSON. What is the standard of orthodoxy among the clergymen you denominate orthodox ?—Ans. Those are denominsted orthodox, in New England, who are opposed to Unitarian sentiments.

"Dr. W. Have they any written or published creed, and which forms a bond of union among them in one system of doctrine? Ans. Nothing like the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church.

"Dr. W. Is not every congregation, in respect to its articles of faith, independent, claiming the right of forming its own creed and covenant? - Ans. I believe they are.

"Dr. W. Was the creed and covenant of Dr. B.'s church similar to that which has been extracted from the sermon on "Faith once delivered to the Saints? - Ans. I never compared the two.

"Dr. W. In what estimation did the orthodox ministers of New

England hold that sermon? Ans. I don't recollect ever hearing that mentioned as distinct from other sermons.

“Dr. W. Has Mr. Rand, in his letter to Dr. B. misrepresented or misstated Dr. B.'s connexions with Dr. Taylor and Mr. Finney? - Ans. I don't know what was in that letter.

"Dr. W. Why did the Unitarians hate Dr. B. when the Christian Examiner, in a review of his sermon on 'Faith once delivered,' &c. claimed the sentiments as their own? Ans. They hated and dreaded him, because they supposed that he was the most powerful and efficient opponent of Unitarian sentiments. labors in Boston were specially directed to counteract Unitarian

sentiments.

His

"Dr. W. Do you not know it as a historical fact, that Unitarians greatly rejoice at the progress of what is called new theology? Ans. They did not, if you mean that Dr. Beecher's doctrines are new theology.

"Mr. BRAINERD. Are the orthodox ministers and churches of New England Calvinists? Ans. Yes, so far as they follow any

man.

"Dr. BEECHER. In what estimation do ministers and churches hold the Assembly's Shorter Catechism? Ans. The orthodox churches, universally, consider it the best epitome of the doctrines of the Bible. The families are taught that Catechism as universally as they are in the Presbyterian church."

It may be so; but we had been led of late to form a better opinion of the Orthodox churches in the neighbourhood. However, we must in justice say, that this Mr. Bullard has travelled about the country to some purpose, having picked up one of the best definitions of New England Orthodoxy which we recollect to have seen. It has but little or nothing to do, it seems, with a man's own opinions or character, but consists in his opposing Unitarianism, no matter how or why. Neither do we much blame the witness for asserting, contrary to the fact, that Dr. Beecher was "uniformly dreaded and hated by Unitarians;" for there are those, we are aware, who cannot possibly conceive that an active and able member of another sect should be the object of any other feelings. Let him pass. But it may be proper to quote Dr. Beecher's own account of his connexion with one of the disorganizers; especially as it purports to clear up an affair involved at the time, we recollect, in some mystery and contradiction.

"When I was in Boston, as many as twenty deacons, or other influential members of the churches, got together, and invited the ministers to meet them; and they proposed that we should send for Mr. Finney. After consultation and discussion, when it came to the vote, every layman, I believe, voted for the measure, and every minister against it. The interposition of the ministers prevented his being sent for, much to the grief of many of the people. Some time after this, Dr. Wisner went to Providence to labor in a protracted meeting. There he met Mr. Finney, heard his doctrine, and became acquainted with his views and measures; and when he returned to Boston, he told the ministers that he was satisfied, and he thought that we ought to yield to the wishes of the churches. We assented accordingly; and then the Union church of Boston, with the approbation of the pastors and the other evangelical churches, invited Mr. Finney to come and labor amongst us. When he came to Boston, I received and treated him as I think Dr. Wilson ought to have received and should have treated me. I gave him the right hand of fellowship, as expressive of my confidence in him, at least till something else should occur to shake it. He committed himself to our advice and guidance; he betrayed nothing of extravagance; he was just as compliant as