The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-10-19


Beecher astonished the meeting OF the New
York and Brooklyn association of Congre-
gational churches in the Park Congrega-
tional church, Brooklyn, to-day, by with
drawing from membership. He had been
assigned to open the discussion on the sub
iect of Spiritual Barbarism." He said 1t
had occurred to him that this subject might
have been selected on account of his ex-
preston of views in the North American
Review last August, in which he had de-
scribed some. theological doctrines as par
barrie, As this article had led to many in
ouiries and comments concerning his own
theological views, he thought this good
opportupitv to state his views fully, es-
pecially as he had determined to close his
remarks with Withdrawal from membership
in the association. He said he felt as Chris
tian gentlema an that it was not right for
him to lay upon any one the responsibility
of his peclliar position. His views had not
materially changed in forty years. He had
often felt that his ministerial brethren were
called upon to bear an undue shf"e OF re-
snonsibility for him, and now he mad def
nitely determined to keep this association,
or ITS members, from such q position, and
that his defense should be no further part
of their duty. He believed that he should
not be any the less in sympathy with them,
but rather in closer ponds OF love. lie
would do anything for them, or their
churches, even more freely and heartily
than before. He then stated some views OF
the nature of God, as set forth in Il West
minister confession. He said the eternal
decree of God, as set forth, to create large
part of men and angels for the purpose OF
eternal torment was barbaric. Such doc
trines he rejected with an impetus that
touched the very foundation OF his soul.
The doctrines of mans total Inability to
obey the laws of God, he also rejected,
as well as the gross and physical represen-
tations of future punishment. He believed
in future punishment, thoroughly, but he
believed the wholesome influence OF that
doctrine had been largely destroyed by sub
shutting the slaughter-house notion OF
hell. He rejected the whole doctrine OF
original sin as founded on the fall OF Adam
as barbaric He expressed his full belief in
a personal God, and utterly repudlated all
pantheism, and also the theory OF Matthew
Arnold that God is nothing but q tendency,
mere blind power not within ourselves.
He believed, although he could not explain
it, in the doctrine OF the Trinity. His own
thought and faith were concentrated upon
Jesus Christ. SO literally did he believe
Christ TO be divine that he could not really
pray to any other being. he sometimes
tried to pray to the Father, but always
ended by addressing his prayer to Christ.
He also believed in divine Providence, both
general and special. He believed in an
9wer to prayer. He thought there were
Millions of prayers that were not answered,
because they ought not to be. He believed
in miracles because he believed that they
were Just as possible to-day as they ever
had been, if only the same circumstances
should happen. He emphatically believed
in the two great miracles of the New Testa-
rlent, the miraculous conception, and the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. He did not be-
lieye in the verbal inspiration of the Bible,
but he believed in the direct influence OF
God upon, the souls OF men who wrote the
different books .of tho Bible, although IN
very different degrees.
Thus tar Mr.. Beecher proceeded without
interruption, but when he passed TO the
subject of the atonement, he was inter-
rupted with many questions The summing
up of his statement was that he did not be.
lieye in tn theory of substitution or in the
doctrine that all punishment which he
longed to the human race, or any part OF
it, was concentrated upon the head OF
Christ He held that human souls may only
be saved through Suffering, 0nd that Christ
as the representative OF the divine nat
ure on earth suffered beyond all Others for
the sake OF men, and as an exhibition OF
the eternal love of God and of Gods will
lingness to suffer in order TO save men.
This part Of his statement appeared TO give
the least satisfaction to the association, al
though several members expressed their
approval. He closed with few words ON
the subject of future punishment, repeat
ing in substance what he had said before.
He then formally babe the association fare
well, assuring the members of his con-
Luuea lose aul Og his belief that they
would not be separated from him IN heart
or in sympathy, and they and he prob
ably could work together Ia more complete
harmony without having any especial &c
clesiastical relation.
Mr.. LLOYD offered a resolution requesting
Mr.. Beecher TO reconsider his withdrawal,
which was referred by unanimous consent 70
n committee cons sting OF DIR. Storrs and
Rev. w. @. Styles.
Thomas G.. Sherman, OF the lay dele
gates OF Plymouth church, to the associa-
ton, said tonight, when asked concerning
the significance Of this step OF his pastor:
'tPlvmouth church does not withdraw
from the association. This is only Mr..
Beecher's withdrawal Of his personal mem
bership. He Is not delegated by the
church, and is not necessarily member on
account of his ministerial Office. Several
other ministers, members Of the associa-
ton, are in spiritual sympathy with him.
The denomination prints us ministers
perfect liberty in the matter. Mr.. Beech
eris chief difference OF views u with refer
ence 70 the doctrines Of the atonement and
Of future punishment. IL Is now agreed
that minister is not 10 be excluded rom
the passionate Of Congregational church by
reason Of holding these views OF future
punishment. That has been decided by
Two councils. one IN Connecticut and the
other in Illinois, representing hity churches.
IL was unanimously held that such views
are not ground for refusing le.loNs si. 20
A church or its pastor. Among the Congre-
gational ministers whose faith Is similar 20
Mr.. Beecher'e, are the Rev. Newman
Rmvfh Of New Haven, the successor Of Df. I
Ie5nard Baker, and the Rev. John NJ.
Whffon. Of Newark j have no reason %
think that Mr.. Beechefs expression Of
his views will create any dissension IN fly-
mouth church. He has expressed pretty
much the same views ~ various times IN
detail, although never all ct one time"
whyconRIEne Did Not spe.k
warHrra7ox, October 3.-Tbere II retri-
butfve Justice in the fact that the republi
can leaders who permitted and who con
donsd the rflainy BIZ which the presidency /
Was stolen In 1s75 are nov likely 70 suffer |
for forgsries and frauds perpstrnted IN the
futsrrst Of her chossn candidates By pur-
chased convention. That is 10 Eay, they
ussd the very instruments ct barntoga
which they profsssed 10 coDdsmn In L0uis-
lana IN yenrs ago.
7-hrf Mr.. Tuden VS. elscfed president b.
!. r~raf majority q the p0puisr vote, white
rr.f hIsrk aud ~ decided majority m
- eIrrffrnI COLLEGES. 4 en- historical fact.
-. .l|IIrhr1 81 undOuttsd proofs Prom.
- frur mat TIE result wns aunOunoed ~
- World = cunsr1racT rs Crrnnlze1
ii rErrf hin cut 81 he elecfiO1. II
- rnr1n<ered An part ~ NiIIiaIn -