nious epithet of fatalist against those who differ from him, let him at least see to it that he chooses his ground better.

Before closing this examination of Dr. Beecher's work we wish to state distinctly, that it contains much of orthodoxy. The very errors which we have condemned, as we have already remarked, are often given as the equivalents of orthodox statements. And there are many such assertions as the following. "When this perverse decision is once made, the heart is fully set, and incorrigible to all motives and immutable in its way." "The Scriptures speak of the permanence and immutability of man's depravity." "It is a part of the terrific nature of sinful man, to baffle all motives, and be voluntarily but unchangeably wicked." We desire to be thankful that it belongs to Dr. Beecher, not to us, to show that that which is incorrigible may nevertheless be corrected, and though unchangeable, that it can be changed. In a single sentence we sometimes have the two brought together. "Nothing is better supported from Scripture than that man by nature is in fact incapable of recovery without the power of God specially interposed, though not an impossibility such as the sinner cannot overcome." We fear our readers will think that a work, in which the same thing is thus affirmed and denied within the compass of a single sentence, has already received too extended a notice. We dismiss it, therefore, with the expression of our best wishes for the author, and our sincere desire that he may in future be more cautious and guarded, should he undertake to deal with the controverted topics of metaphysics and theology.

Since the foregoing article was commenced, we have received two publications from Dr. Beecher through the columns of the Cincinnati Journal. In the first of these we are arraigned, in company with Dr. Wilson, Dr. Hoge, Mr. Nettleton, Dr. Harvey, and the editors of the Presbyterian, the Southern Christian Herald, and the Hartford Watchman, as parties to a conspiracy against him. Though he thinks these conspirators have all done him great wrong, yet he believes that "their sin and shame” may be forgiven, if they will suitably "bewail the evil they have done." The object of the conspiracy is "to write him down in reference to the present crisis in our church;" the proof of it is, that his book, and the consistency of his conduct, have undergone examination at the hands of several of the individuals named within a recent period, and that period so chosen as to preclude the possibility of a reply from him prior to the session of the late General Assembly. We have turned the subject in every possible way, and we are utterly at a loss to conceive what connexion the review of Dr. Beecher's book had with the sessions of the General Assembly. He was not upon trial before that body-he was not a delegate to it-he had no other interest in it, that we can discern, than every other Presbyterian minister had. It is useless, however, to reason with the fears of the imagination. And yet we wish there was some way to lay the phantom of evil which Dr. Beecher has

conjured up. The most miserable man we have ever known was one who was persuaded that Bonaparte was employing the whole resources of the French empire for his capture, and that if this attempt was successful, there would then be nothing to hinder the subjugation of the rest of the world. The inconvenience and suffering, occasioned by such fears, are not less than if the apprehended danger were real. We do therefore solemnly assure Dr. Beecher that our article was written without concert or collusion with any one, without a hint or suggestion from any quarter; and that the proximity in the time of its appearance to the session of the General Assembly, was purely accidental. It never once entered our thoughts that a review of his book could have any influence on the proceedings of that body.

Dr. Beecher also finds reason, from the simple fact that his consistency has been impugned, and his book in some respects censured, both at East Windsor and at Princeton, to suggest to the public whether there is not sufficient evidence of "a coalition of Theological Seminaries," for the sake of " intimidating" their pupils and others into their own theological peculiarities, and thus getting up "a second papal system." We shall make no other comment upon this note of alarm than to quote the following sentence from his Views in Theology, "And never was there a moment when a little panic of alarm, or impatience of feeling, may turn, for good or for evil, the life-giving or destroying waters of such a flood down through distant generations."

Dr. Beecher's second communication to the public is occupied entirely with our former article, but it will not be necessary for us to notice it at any great length. Every reader of the review and the reply will at once see that he has not touched upon the difficulties of the case. The real question is turned aside, and a new issue presented. We will merely illustrate this by a reference to the manner in which he disposes of the extract which we produced from the Spirit of the Pilgrims. In this passage it will be remembered that, after stating the opinions which had been held by the Reformers, the Puritans, and Edwards, he states that a change had taken place, and that the New England divines had long since rejected "the views of the Reformers on the subject of original sin, as consisting in the imputation of Adam's sin, and a depraved nature transmitted by descent; that in opposition to this they held "that depravity is wholly voluntary, and consists in the transgression of the law under such circumstances as constitutes accountability and desert of punishment." We then quoted another passage to show that Dr. Beecher himself held these views which he attributed to the New England divines. And how does he dispose of this case? Even thus. "To prove that I deny the doctrine of original sin, it is necessary to prove that the standard New England divines denied it, for the change is one which they made, and my concurrence is with them. If they deny original sin, I deny it, and if they do not, I do not." Then follows a string of quotations from

New England writers, which we have not read, because they are nothing to the purpose; and moreover we do not need to be informed by Dr. Beecher that they taught the doctrine of original sin. We know they did. But what does this prove? Only what we also knew before, that Dr. Beecher grossly misrepresented them in the extract in question. We were aware that Dr. Woods and others had complained that he did not truly state the New England opinions, in this very controversy with the Christian Examiner ; but we did not think it becoming, at the time, to take any notice of this misrepresentation, little imagining that he himself would lay hold of it as the weapon of his defence. The only effect of his reply is to draw down upon himself the additional charge of having misrepresented the opinions of his brethren. There stand his own words, expressly denying, on behalf of the New England divines in general, and of himself in particular, the doctrine of original sin. To prove now that they did not deny it, is only to convict himself of having slandered them. His own denial still stands in connexion with his explicit avowal of the same doctrine in his Views in Theology, and his declaration that he has never changed his opinions upon the subject.

ESSAY VII.

THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW ENGLAND

CHURCHES.*

OUR readers may be somewhat surprised at seeing, in our margin, the title of a book published near a century ago. The character of this periodical, however, does not restrict us to the notice of works of a recent date. The past is the mirror of the present, as the present is of the future. What is now has been before, and shall be hereafter. It is well, at times, to look back and see how the trials of our forefathers agree with our own; to observe how the errors and disorders with which we have to contend afflicted them; to notice how the methods adopted in former ages to secure the introduction of false doctrines answer to the devices of the present day; and how signally God blessed the faithful efforts of his servants in defence of his truth, and how uniformly compromise and subserviency have been followed by the triumph of error and the decline of religion. The history of the church is replete with instructions on all these points; and these instructions are presented in the history of the church in our own country in a form peculiarly adapted to our present circumstances. The pious founders of the Congregational and Presbyterian churches in America brought with them the very doctrines which the friends of truth in those churches are now struggling to maintain; they had to contend with the same errors and disorders, and they resisted them by the same means which we are now endeavouring to employ, viz., testimony, discussion and discipline. Their fidelity produced just the same outcry about ecclesiastical tyranny, inquisitorial powers, freedom of thought, march of intellect, new discoveries, with which the ears of the public are now assailed. The same plea of essential agreement, of mere shades of difference, of the evils of controversy, was urged then, as now. But blessed be God, not with the same success. The men of those generations did not allow themselves to be either frightened or

Originally published in 1839, in review of the following work:-" A Brief History and Vindication of the Doctrines received and established in the Churches of New England, with a specimen of the New Scheme of Religion beginning to prevail." By Thomas Clap, A. M., President of Yale College.

beguiled. And as long as they retained their courage and fidelity, their efforts were crowned with success.

There is another instructive feature in the history of the last century. Those who could not endure sound doctrine, would not endure sound discipline. As soon as they had departed from the faith, they got their eyes wide open to the evils of ecclesiastical authority. This opposition to supervision manifested itself in Connecticut in two ways. Some objected to the examination into the doctrinal opinions of ministers, or to the exercise of discipline for the prevailing errors; while others withdrew from the consociated churches and set up for themselves. These separatists called themselves strict Congregationalists. One of their standing subjects of complaint was the supervision of the consociation. This was found to be very inconvenient. It is readily admitted that many Christians have honestly and from good motives preferred the purely independent system of church government, yet there can be no doubt that then, as now, many who advocated that system did it because of the convenient latitude which it affords for all kinds of doctrine.

So much has been said of late years of the contentions in the Presbyterian church; such assiduous efforts have been made to produce the impression that there is either some great evil in Presbyterianism, or that its present advocates are peculiarly and wickedly bigoted, that we have thought it wise, and likely in various ways to be useful, to recall attention to one chapter of the ecclesiastical history of Connecticut. It will be seen that so long as there is a regard for divine truth and for real religion in the church, there will be controversy and contention when errorists arise and endeavour to propagate their doctrines. There can be no surer sign of degeneracy than the peaceful progress of error. If, therefore, the same or analogous errors and disorders which a century ago agitated many parts of New England to its centre, are now allowed to prevail without opposition, it will prove to all the world that the faith and the spirit of the Puritans have perished among their descendants. It is not our intention, though largely in the debt of a certain class of our New England brethren, to read them a lesson out of their own history. It is not for their benefit so much as for our own, that we bring to the notice of our readers President Clap's Defence of the Doctrines of the New England Churches. It will serve to confirm the purpose and strengthen the faith of the friends of truth in our church, to see that they are fighting the same battle which has once before been fought and won, and that on New England ground. It will serve to refute the calumny of those who represent the struggle in our church, as an opposition to genuine New England doctrines. It will show that we are now opposing what all sound and faithful Puritans ever have resisted; and that the reproaches which we now suffer were just as freely lavished on New England men a hundred years ago.