(3) REVIEW OF "THE NEW DIVINITY TRIED;" OR AN EXAMINATION OF REV. MR. RAND'S STRICTURES ON A SERMON DELIVERED BY THE REV. C. G. FINNEY, ON MAKING A NEW HEART. BOSTON: No. 9, Cornhill. REVIEW. The New Divinity Tried, being an Examination of a Sermon delivered by the Rev. C. G. Finney, on Making a New Heart. First published in the Volunteer. By Asa Rand. Boston: Lyceum Press. Light & Harris, No. 3, Cornhill, 1832. The first thing that strikes the considerate reader of this pamphlet is the novelty and impropriety of the course pursued by its author. The Rev. Mr. Finney, in his ordinary routine of ministerial duty, delivered in this city, on a sabbath evening in October or November last, an extemporaneous discourse on the making a new heart enjoined in Ezek. xviii. 31. The editor of the Volunteer, it seems, was present, and took notes of the sermon; and without asking the permission of the preacher, or even informing him of what he was about to do, the editor, in his next number, occupied three pages and a portion of a fourth with an "Abstract of the Sermon," and thirteen pages with "Strictures." This is, in this country at least, an entirely novel course. We recollect but two instances in which abstracts of sermons made from notes taken while listening to them, have been printed, without the consent of the preachers, and made the subject of condemnatory remarks. Sometime since a clergyman of this city delivered, on a weekday evening, after previous notice, in a neighboring town, a discourse designed, and announced, as an attack on the system of the Universalists. Three Universalist ministers, including the editor of the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine, attended, and took notes of the sermon. Subsequently inquiry was made of the preacher, whether the sermon would be published, accompanied with a notification, that, if it were not published, the abstract which had been taken of it would be printed in the Trumpet, with remarks in reply. The sermon was not published, and the abstract and remarks were printed in the Trumpet. And another weekly paper printed in Boston, and styling itself religious, which, in the severity and abuse with which it treats those from whom it differs, even on points admitted to be not fundamental, is but little behind the Trumpet, has, we are told, in a few instan ces, pursued the very course taken by the editor of the Volunteer in the case before us. Such are the precedents he has chosen to follow, and the sources from which they are derived. Precedents and sources which, all who have a regard for fairness and decency in controversy will agree with us, do not at all invalidate the correctness of the assertion that the course which the author of the pamphlet before us has taken is an entirely novel one, at least in this country. It is also an extremely improper one. What right had the editor of the Volunteer to publish an abstract of Mr. Finney's sermon without his consent? The discourse as prepared by its author was solely his property, to dispose of it as he should think proper. Ile chose to preach it for the oral instruction of his hearers. But his doing this neither contained nor implied a permission to any one of his hearers to publish what he could retain of it, much less to make such an abstract the subject of strictures in a periodical. To do so, the usage in regard to such things being what it is, as truly violates personal rights as it would to publish in a periodical, what could be recollected of a conversation oi a clergyman, with accompanying strictures. But, says the editor (Volunteer p. 188) in replying to a hint that had been given by a correspondent, of the impropriety and unfairness of his course. "Editors publish abstracts of addresses and sernions before benevolent societies, almost every week in the year, and sometimes make them the ground of critical remark. The same practice prevails respecting speeches in Congress and other Legislatures." We do not agree that the usage is as here stated in regard to critical remarks on abstracts of addresses and sermons before benevolent societies. But admitting it to be so, in these cases the speaker understands beforehand that what he shall say may be so used, and therefore in delivering his address, or sermon, in such circumstances, gives an implied consent to such a course being taken in regard to it, if any of his hearers shall see fit to take it. But there is nothing like this in the case of a discourse delivered, as was that of Mr. Finney, in the course of the ordinary instructions of the pulpit. This ground of justification, therefore, entirely fails. The editor has alled^ed another, equally unfounded. He says (Volunteer p. 188), "Our justifi tion in this instance is, that sentiments which we deem subversive of the Gospel in their results, are frequently preached before this community, which have not been printed; and, feeling necessity laid upon us to examine them, and vindicate the truth, we took the only method which was left us." The sentiments referred to are, of course, those advanced in this sermon. And so far is this statement in regard to them from being correct, that the same sentiments have been, not only preached, but also printed, in a sermon on the same text in the Christian Spectator, vol. vi. p. 241; and in a sermon on Regeneration by the Rev. Dr. Cox of New York, published in October 1829, which has been extensively circulated, and reviewed in different religious periodicals. And various articles inserted in the Christian Spectator during the last two or three years advocate similar views. Thus the pleas, and all the pleas, of justification the editor has offered are found to be unavailing. |