belongs to them," &c., &c. Read page 209, and onward, for a declaration of grievances; and if you have tears to shed, prepare to shed them now. But, be calm; let us ask, What does all this mean, as part of a chapter upon the "Basis of Union among Presbyterians," and after such cautious preparation for a thorough cannonading? We have been watching this manouvre, and trying to catch the animus of this portentous whine, and being somewhat collected, -have perceived, as we think, the order of battle. Mr. C. now proposes to scare out these "decided Presbyterians," by telling them once more among what an awful people they are ecclesiastically living. Of course, they can no longer maintain a union with such a people; neither need they do so, for Mr. C. is before them with the "Basis" in one hand, and the compromise of prejudice in the other, and the Synod of Buffalo is not far off; the whole "difficulty is overcome." There never was a clearer case! For fear, however, they may not come, he sweeps down "Drs. Cox, Beman, Beecher, Duffield, and Mr. Barnes;" and when these chieftains, some of them venerable, are no more, then a regular enfilading fire scatters dismay and death among the "New School" Presbyterians; opening wide their agitated columns; all for the benefit of these "decided Presbyterians!" Surely now they can. get out, and they will get out. They have the combined advantages of concussion and light. Being themselves "sound in the faith," though by a mistake caught in a "new organization," and, withal, not upon the Basis," as they had supposed, they will at once take up their departure. They stay there! Not they, until the will ceases to be determined by the greatest apparent good. This mighty war of words is not a converting benediction to win these New School" heretics, though, peradventure, they would all be orthodox if they would only come. These "decided Pres . byterians" are the men whom the author, by his own showing, wishes to help into the Synod of Buffalo. If they can once be separated from the "New School," and then taught to avoid the foolish novelty of "an independent Synod in Western New York," the way will be clear for them to resume their connection with our church." And as to the "New School" themselves, if they “desire a union with us," the plan is very simple; they must "retract their errors, and make an honest subscription to our standards." Mr. C. surely has one merit; he tells us very plainly what he wants-for what he wrote his book; giving us the opportunity to take this knowledge into the account for the benefit of all parties, himself not excepted. We ask those who have commended his labors in somewhat flattering terms, whether they have read Chap. IX., and if so, whether they really mean to make themselves parties to the slanders of his pen? Chapter X.-This is a " Plea for union among Presbyterians" THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. NO. 1. 3 -the next thing in the order of nature to a Basis of Union." The preliminary matter goes back to first principles; and is designed to illustrate two propositions; namely, "A union desirable-Division among Christians an evil." We shall not burden this paper with all the sundries of this argument; for we have no special objections to urge, at least, in the present connection. The author finally reaches "the grand remedy" for divisions, which is "to elevate among ourselves the standard of orthodoxy and piety." Having become somewhat familiar with his ecclesiastical pathology, we at once supposed this idea was to be turned to a special purpose, and by reading on found that the conjecture was not far from the truth. Let us then listen to the "Plea for union among Presbyterians." To the first thought, as an abstract thesis, we are disposed to say, amen. It is the general principle, that when practicable and not prevented by higher considerations (conditions omitted by the author) "every minister and every communicant ought to express truthfully their respective (we suppose he means peculiar) views, by their position in the visible church." For the application of this thought, he observes-"No man can, without a change in his sentiments, be an Old School Presbyterian in one end of the State, and a New School Presbyterian in the other, and be an honest man." Many circumstances may make it expedient for a man who has been connected with an " Old School" church in one end of the State, to be connected with a "New School" church in the other, and vice versa; and we would not in all cases declare such a transition to be a breach of honesty. The fact is, theologically considered, there are a great many "Old School" men in the "New School" connection, and perhaps as many "New School" men in the "Old School" connection. They are passing and re-passing from the one to the other. We will not, as does the author, assume the responsibility of a condemnatory judgment in all these cases; nevertheless, we ask no favors for those who make the transition merely as a matter of selfish policy, who are "in the market to be bought for a piece of bread." They are a class of men with whom we have no sympathy, and for whom no respect-a genus of humanity, whose principles do not bear transportation. It becomes the author, however, to speak very modestly of such men, lest he may be justly involved in the same condemnation; for, as saith the Biblical Repertory, he "was once a zealous New School and New Measure man ;" and has, therefore, once, at least, turned his coat. A man who had never been guilty of the transition, might, perhaps, have cleaner hands, and speak of "these pliable consciences" with more authority. Having proposed the above thesis for the hearing of these "decided Presbyterians," Mr. C. is now ready to give them a hint in very general terms, with a very pithy reference to a local allusion. "Those Old School Men who come into places where the New School have the majority, in wealth and influence, and unite with them on that account, must expect to lose cast with their former brethren; if they claim that they have changed their friends only, and not their sentiments, they publish their own shame." After more of the like, excepting that some of it is a little more pathetic, especially the reference to "their suffering brethren" (a sad thing to be an "Old School" man living where the "New School" have the majority!!), he observes-" it is a blessing to any denomination, to be quit of all such unstable, not to say unprincipled adherents." So far the "Plea" is a mixture of pathos, indignation, denunciation, moral appeal, with the addition of the doctrine of "cast"-to borrow Ovid's description of chaos, a very rudis indigestaque moles." All this applies to "those Old School men who COME"-whether he means who have come, or are coming, or will come, or all three, is not exactly clear. At any rate, they "come into places where the New School have the majority." We think the inside of this whole matter may be seen without the gift of clairvoyance. Mr. C. lives in a region in which, if we are correctly informed, the "New School" have a very decided majority" over their brethren of the "Old School," in the important article of ministers and churches, as the latter have over the former in other regions. We state this as a fact, without any special joy or grief. We suppose in this age, it is no uncommon occurrence for "Old School" men to " come into places where the New School have the majority;" and, not thinking as badly of the latter as does Mr. C., to connect themselves with "New School" churches; since they cannot find those of their first preference within a convenient distance. This common practice of both Schools is a living proof of their mutual confidence. We of the "New School," having no piques or prejudices against these migrating brethren of the "Old School," are willing in all charity to receive them, if this be their desire-hoping, in the meantime, that they will not join us, because we "have the majority in wealth and influence." We act on this principle because we believe that the essential, substantial Christianity of the two Schools is one. It does not, however, seem to have occurred to Mr. C', that these "Old School men" could unite with "New School" churches for any reason, but the contemptible one he names or that possibly they might not agree with him as to the orthodoxy of said churches; forgetting on the one hand that even "Old School men" have bodies, and cannot, therefore, 'It is a circumstance that will not escape the notice of the careful reader, that the author's reasoning respects the transition from Old School to New. What would be the nature of a transition from New School to Old, he is not so particular to consider. What position of mind this indicates, let every man judge for himself. move over long distances on the Sabbath; and assuming on the Among the arguments presented in this wonderful" Plea," is the doctrine of "cast." the author, as he takes no little pains to press it home. "If we This seems to have peculiar charms with unite with the New School body, or remain in it, and expect to be regarded as Old School men, our expectation is no compliment either to our understanding or to our integrity; our motives will be duly appreciated in the end, and our moral worth weighed in the balances." Rather a low level of argumentation with these "decided Presbyterians!" Politicians might, perhaps, do something at this level-hinting that the dispensation of "spoils" was yet to come, and that a name might then be worth something to a man; but it will not be easy to corner Christian men in this way. It is a kind of argument that proves best when not uttered too loud. The better way is not to publish, but to whisper it. Suppose that "we" care very little about the name of "Old" or New School," that we are ashamed of neither, and do not specially glory in either, that "we" have not excogitated any particular expectations about the mere name, that "we" are too old to be caught by theological cant; then, alas, the author will have spoken in vain; he may then weigh us in whatever "balances" he chooses. "We" shall not be particularly anxious to know how many ounces of "New School," or "Old," he detects in our composition. The author has a closing word for a certain "third party," claiming to be "no party," favoring " an independent Synod in Western New York." He gives them a short lecture. They "are not believed to be what their professions imply," they "are regarded as imbittered partizans." They are not working for a "union of Presbyterians," but for "a new division of the church;" for which there is "no demand." He tells the "third party," that there is "no call for the organization of an independent Synod in Western New York;" and explains his motive for saying this "I say this to take away the apology from those who profess to be Old School Presbyterians, and yet refuse to unite with us, because they expect to have a third organization. I do not say it to prevent such an organization-it needs nothing to prevent it, for it will never exist. The very idea itself has almost ceased to amuse the fancy of any sober man, in the shape of a rationa! probability." It is amusing to see how some men can contradict themselves, almost in the same breath. The author began as if this "third party" was really a formidable affair, and, yet, after taking a turn or two, he virtually says: Nonsense! Why, the "third party" is dead! yes, dead! "the very idea itself has almost ceased to amuse the fancy of any sober man, in the shape of a rational probability!" The nature of his objection to this "third party," that is, and is not at the same time, is quite as clear as the objection itself. He does not like it, because, peradventure it might absorb some material which he wishes to work into the Synod of Buffalo. "I say this to take away the apology from those who profess to be Old School Presbyterians, and yet refuse to unite with us, because they expect to have a third organization." We have now finished the analysis of the three chapters, in which we proposed to seek the quo animo of this whole performance. It is nothing more or less than a new crusade against a large and respectable portion of the church of Christ, for a local, sectarian purpose. If this be not the fact, then it is perfectly unaccountable that it should carry with it so many evidences of such a fact. These chapters, properly speaking, have no more relation to the subject of "Doctrinal Differences," than to the nebula in Orion, except as such a relation shall be created by the author's state of mind. Himself is the connecting link. We do not complain that he is an "Old School Presbyterian," we know very many such whom we love and admire; but we do complain of his abuses. Even these, bad as they are, might have been passed sub silentio, had they not been seconded by others, who had they studied his work more, would perhaps have commended it less. If any other denomination of professing Christians, "occupying an independent position, and not necessarily involved in the controversy between the divided branches of the Presbyterian Church," though "by no means an uninterested spectator," is prepared to make itself particeps criminis in this matter, by commending the book to the "friends of truth," on account of its "able discrimination and sound reasoning;" we hope such denomination will first read, and then inwardly digest; and if after this the commendation is to be continued, we can only say, but not without much grief of heart, and vivid sense of the injustice-so let it be. Those who hold "the theology current in the New School body," will perhaps by and by conclude themselves to be lawful prey, at least, so far as their "hidden evasions and indirections, and concealed and guarded opposition to truth" may be concerned.' The endorsement of such a book, if intelligently made, made after a thorough reading and full understanding of its contents and design, is not merely a discourtesy; it is the infliction of a serious wrong upon 'Remarks in the Christian Intelligencer. |