e there was nothing
hidebound. There was no attempt to draw lines too tight; indeed, there
was little drawing of lines. Principles were stated, and applied.
Description took the place of definition.

One result was the intensifying of certain convictions, and of these the
chief was that the test of belief was the life. Mr. Beecher's breadth of
sympathy on all public questions, manifested particularly in the slavery
discussion, came out if possible more clearly in regard to doctrinal
matters. He made it a principle to seek for the best in every man, and
was very loath to believe evil of anyone. So when men differed from him
in theology his tendency always was to seek for the truth that was
contained in that view, and give it all possible emphasis. In his
preaching he did not feel obliged to guard himself against every
possible misconception, and would speak on a topic or present a truth,
as if for the moment at least, that was the one topic, the one truth, to
be considered. The result was that he was claimed by very nearly every
denomination in the country. When this was done by Universalists or
Unitarians, the old-line Congregationalists were troubled, and
Presbyterians thanked God that they could not be held responsible for
his views.

When Dr. Abbott became pastor the same condition continued, perhaps
emphasised, as Dr. Abbott is broader in his theology than Mr. Beecher
ever was, while still preserving Mr. Beecher's general attitude toward
divergent beliefs. Under Dr. Hillis theological matters are subordinated
to general aggressive church work, although now as always there is the
most cordial welcome to all of every form of Christian statement who
emphasise Christian life.

The effect of all this upon the church itself, in its membership, has
been to make it exceedingly liberal. Men are taken for what they are,
not for what they believe, and this principle accepted in one respect is
easily extended to others. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose
that broadness of theology is the same thing as looseness of doctrinal
belief.

Plymouth Church is loyal to the faith in which it was born and nurtured,
and there are not a few who do not accept many of the forms of statement
current to-day. They do not therefore condemn those who do, realising
that the very principle of intellectual independence, which has always
been so powerful an element in the church life, inevitably involves
difference of opinion. Many who mi