deny not the author's ability to execute this Herculean task; but he has not done, it-not even tried it; he did not start right. It is very plain, that his book is not destined to immortality; it comes into the world with the ghastly omen of death upon it; and like much of the merely readable literature of the age it must run a short race. It requires a writer of no ordinary parts to convert a past into a present tense; and keep up the pleasing illusion from age to age. He must have a great subject, and do it ample justice.

III. We come now to an examination of the "Introductory Chapter" by Dr. Lord. This chapter is an endorsement, and recommendation to the public, of Mr. Cheeseman's labors; so that although the latter should have prepared the work without any fraternal aid, it goes forth with all the authority which the name of Dr. Lord can impart. He does not criticise a single passage; but makes the whole his own by a legitimate construction. He tells the public to take it for truth, adding much that is spicy upon his own responsibility. We hold him morally answerable to God -logically to the world for this service. As compared with Mr. C., he is the more public man; and inasmuch as this business of recommending books is really a very serious matter, where not personal favoritism, or party affinities, but truth and righteousness ought to reign, we propose to give the reader a somewhat extended exegesis of the "Introduction."

A small part of it (namely, the first sentence and the last paragraph) is directly commendatory; and the analysis of this, somewhat in the way of item by item, will be our first work.

The first idea in his commendation of a book professedly treating of things as grave as "doctrinal differences," things which have taxed and even embarrassed the soundest and strongest understandings, strikes us as a singular conception. We would not notice it if it were not the vertebral column, on which his commendation mainly rests, whether consciously or unconsciously on his part we cannot tell. The idea is that of the in which "Mr. Cheeseman has presented his subject." The "MANNER' attribute of this manner is, that it "appeals to the pious feelings, to the Christian emotions of every renewed heart." objection to such appeals in their proper place; on the contrary, We have no we think very much of them; yet, we had been in the habit of supposing, that in regard to the matters contained in Mr. C's subject" the appeal was to be made, not to feelings, to mere emotions of any kind, but to the understanding. We suggest the question, Who is right, the Dr. or the reviewer? For example; is it a question to be settled by "pious feelings," "Christian emotions," whether our Saviour literally suffered the penalty of the law; or, what is the connection between Adam and his posterity in the matter of sinfulness; or, on which side of the "doctrinal

66

differences" is the truth in respect to the constitutionality of the exscinding act? These, and such like, belong to Mr. Cheeseman's "subject;" and are we in this nineteenth century to erect feelings," "emotions" of any kind, into a tribunal for the trial of such causes? We take the liberty to deny the jurisdiction of the court. This mode of settling theological questions, we know, is a very convenient way to prove one's orthodoxy, provided the "feelings" are of the right stamp-a very short route to find heresy; it saves the trouble of that tedious work some people call argument; and compensates for the absence of the capacity to reason, whether hermeneutically or otherwise. It is, however, a mere trick, where the question is essentially one of thought and biblical exegesis, not of feeling. We grant that Mr. C. has a somewhat pious way of saying very hard, and sometimes very bad things; but we have lived too long in the world and seen too much of the different phases of human spleen, to be caught with such a "manner." The Dr. is quite certain, that Mr. C's. " manner" appeals (we suppose he means favorably) to the pious feelings "of every renewed heart." EVERY RENEWED HEART" is a large idea; and taking him as he writes, we infer that those to whom the "manner" does not thus appeal, either have no hearts, or if so, then not renewed hearts; a new test of human nature on the one supposition, and of Christian character on the other. We will not mutilate the sentence by any deductions or unauthorized interpolations; but suggest, that it had better be returned to its author for farther consideration, and, perhaps, improvement.

The Dr. continues his commendation by informing us, that Mr. C. "may not have avoided all the severity which controversy engenders, but he has succeeded beyond my expectations in giving a practical character to the work." This is a curious passage in its relation to the labors of Mr. C. Let us see: Who are the controversialists liable to be decoyed into "the severity which controversy engenders;" and into which Mr. C. himself "may" have fallen? They are Mr. C. on the one hand, and the "New School Presbyterians" on the other. It is admitted that two such personages exist, and that between them there might be a "controversy." Well, was there any such controversy when the Dr. penned his hypothesis? The simple truth is, that, to a very great extent, the latter did not know that the former, namely, Mr. C., had lighted upon this mundane sphere, until they heard of his coming under the banner of Dr. Lord, and in the most furious gladiatorial array-a recently enlisted champion of "Old School Presbyterians," as proved by a light (Mr. Wisner's Review) that burst upon his rear-engaged, at his own charges, in the amiable work of aspersion. The Dr's. implied assumption that the "New School Presbyterians" were under arms, is false. He must not think that all are men of war, because he is. The

"New School" did not know this modern Achilles; they had no controversy" with this persona incognita. What the Dr. calls a "controversy" we call an attack, an assault vi et armis, for a purpose about as lovely as the mode is ingenuous and honorable. Yes; after the Dr. has himself imitated the very worst features of Mr. C.'s "manner"-going along as an endorser, while holding a sword in both hands, he very graciously tells the public, that his fellow-laborer "may not have avoided all the severity," &c. Be patient, gentlemen; you know it is our privilege to have a "controversy" when, and where, and with whomsoever we will; it is only necessary for us to begin the work of accusation, and then any hard things we may say, are to be imputed not to a bad spirit, but the heat of debate. Yes; "New School Presbyterians" can, of course, afford to be patient; for, although they did not call off Mr. C. from the onerous cares of the "First, Presbyterian Church," of Rochester, to make an attack upon their orthodoxy, still the Dr. has consented to console them with whatever comfort there "may" be in a bare possibility. In plain words, we do not like his salve any better than his false assumption.

The passage is also a little mysterious. What does the author mean by the declaration, that Mr. C. "has succeeded beyond my expectations?" Has the Dr. accidentally leaked out the idea, that besides the "Introduction," he has had something to do with "the work" itself? How much? Something, we conclude, else we cannot understand why he should have had any "expectations" in regard to it. To what extent is he modestly recommending himself? It does seem as if a part of a fact were rising above the surface. We know not what it was that troubled his expectations; but, if it were something in the author, then Mr. C. must settle the account with his endorser; if it were something in the "subject" itself, then for once, at least, even Dr. Lord is not perfectly clear, as to the "practical character" of such a “subject." What was it?

Again, the passage contains what is to us, at least, quite a novelty. We have no bias or troubles on the score of previous expectations;" but we must confess, that if we take "the work” as embodying the Dr's. conception of a "practical character," here, also, we have another new idea. The "practical character" of the work relates to the effect it is intended to produce, and having read it with some care, we judge this to be the effect; namely, the practice of having "these brethren," these "decided Presbyterians" leave their "New School connection," and come over to the benefit of "our cause." This would be one kind of practice, no doubt. How much of this practice Mr. C. "has succeeded" in generating we cannot tell; but we venture the opinion that the adaptations of "the work" for such results will depend quite as much on the condition of the subject, as upon the

skill of the author. If any of " these brethren" should happen to think Mr. C. right, because he speaks so positively, has so little occasion to fortify his opinions by argument, and can quote Scripture without showing its application; if they should think "New School Presbyterians" about the same thing as "Unitarians," because Mr. C. says so, though they had not conjectured it before; then possibly such persons will adopt the practice of not leaving "their names, their property, and their offspring" to "be lost to our church." Beyond this circle (we hope for the credit of human nature, it is not very large) we apprehend "the work" will not be as "practical," as a strong fancy and perhaps as strong a wish have led the Dr. to imagine. In what other sense it has a "practical character" we confess a total inability to understand. It is not an exhortation to repentance or faith; but, from first to last, a direct attack upon the orthodoxy and honesty of" New School Presbyterians"-a wholesale accusation of a large class of ministers and Christians, for a purpose that is as obvious as the sun at noon-day. The author begins with this object, and he ends with it in a very grave and earnest "Plea for union among Presbyterians." Really, in plain words, it is a species of" barefaced" sectarian Jesuitism, not uncommon among Romanists, but quite a curiosity in the habits and manners of Protestants. If the reader think this a severe remark, he may be assured, that "all the severity" lies in its truth; let him read the first, ninth, and tenth chapters for the quo animo of the author, and, after this, the intermediate chapters for the modus operandi. To dignify such a production with the honor of a "practical character," is a misnomer. In the good and usual sense of this phrase it has no such "character. The sense in which it is "practical," may be a very captivating charm to Dr. Lord; ye,t probably, but few men will sympathize with all his idiosyncracies.

The Dr. closes the commendation by observing: "He makes the practical power of the doctrines of grace and redemption so manifest, that the eyes of all unprejudiced persons can hardly fail to be opened, and if I mistake not, there will be left upon the mind of every reader, an impression of the importance of these great truths for which we stand in a day of darkness and rebuke." We ask the reader to pause and sift this language in its intended application. These great truths for which we" (Dr. Lord and Mr. C., certainly, and how many others he does not say,) "stand in a day of darkness and rebuke:" What are they? Why, the truths in controversy between "Old School and New School Presbyterians," according to the modern version of that controversy by these brethren; in regard to which truths the "New School" being a "corrupted" " portion of the Presbyterian communion," "artfully" concealing "under various disguises from the eyes of multitudes of pious persons" their real sentiments, rejecting the

"distinctive doctrines and features of the Westminster confes ́sion," while nominally, and therefore hypocritically retaining it as their symbol of faith-the "New School" are entirely wrong, bloated with heresy to a perfect plethora; while "we," who are "in a day of darkness and rebuke"-yes, "we," being orthodox, as a matter of course, are as certainly right. They have all the heresy-and "we" all the orthodoxy! A very modest strain of bigotry and arrogance, decked in pious phrase! We must say it, because we think it; yes, this-just this, after the Dr.'s proem of accusation. The self-complacency of the passage will do for a specimen in a cabinet of moral curiosities. Besides this, it is instructive to see how some men can nurse their fury, and grow both wise and certain, when they have the privilege of they please. The Dr.'s first idea was, that "the doctrines of saying what and redemption," namely, "these great truths," &c., shone so grace brightly in the hands of Mr. C., " that the eyes of all unprejudiced persons can hardly fail to be opened." If therefore some, or all of "that large and respectable body of members of the Presbyterian church, who, though sound in the faith, yet remain in the New School connexion," (their "eyes" being shut while they so remain,) should have the misfortune not to have their eyes "opened,' so as to embody the Dr.'s idea of the "practical character;" if this should be, then they might plead prejudice, that darkest of mental opacities. No; not even this; for the Dr. has just caught a second thought, and fastened all such characters beyond the possibility of escape. Unless he is mistaken, this new and bright light will leave its impression "upon the mind of every reader"-piercing the thickest veil of prejudice, disclosing to all "these great truths for which we stand in a day of darkness and rebuke."

We are not prompted by any hypercritical spirit in these strictures upon the Dr.'s commendation. We think we understand him. It is not the first time "New School Presbyterians" have had occasion to observe this peculiar style of certain men, very mild, and even sometimes evangelical on the surface, yet having an under-current that is acid and corrosive. When a minister of the gospel gravely, and in a public manner, as the Dr. has done, assails his brethren, attacks their orthodoxy, impugns their honesty, attempts the odium theologicum; when he does this, his language deserves to be sifted, its purport well weighed, and its intended use carefully searched. We like such proceedings none the better, because couched in pious phrase; and choose to express ourselves without any of those "disguises" which he thinks to be so congenital among New School" men.

The commendation of Mr. C. is perhaps the least offensive part of the "Introductory Chapter." Besides this, the author adds very many things upon his own responsibility. Some of these may be fitly characterized, by calling them revelations of his state of mind