10. Count Raymond of Toulouse. 11. Important Doctrines of the True Christian Religion. 12. A Manual of Morals for Common Schools. 13. History of Mary, Queen of Scots. 14. History of King Charles the First, of England. 15. Gowrie; or the King's Plot. 16. The Great Hoggarthy Diamond. 17. The Rev. Leigh Richmond's Letters and Counsels to his Children. THE BIBLICAL REPOSITORY AND CLASSICAL REVIEW. THIRD SERIES, NO. XVII.—WHOLE NUMBER, TLXXNEW YORK JANUARY, 1849. ARTICLE I. PUBLIC LIBRARY 699306A ASTOR, LENOX AND TILDEN FOUNDATIONS OLD AND NEW SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANISM. By REV. SAMUEL T. SPEAR, Brooklyn, N. Y. Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians. By In the following Article it is proposed to make some comments on the Book, designated by the above title. The book carries with it the name of John C. Lord, D.D., of Buffalo, for a voucher; besides which, it has already received a favorable notice from the Biblical Repertory, as well as from several religious journals of the day. It may perhaps be well to inform the reader in the outset, that, although the reviewer is conscious of no special love for the work of criticism, still he need not expect to find many commendations in this article. The book has many faults, and but few virtues; and to review it with justice is to criticise it with pointed severity. In the above opinion we may not agree with Dr. Lord, and some others, who think the work a valuable performance, an important addendum to the religious literature of the age. If so, then this will be an illustration of subjective " differences," not objective, surely, since the printer has given us but one book to read, though the readers be many. We should be quite willing at once to submit the "doctrinal" points, and join the issue of orthodoxy and truth with the author in regard to them; and this would be our course, were there not some important preliminary matter, whose inspection is requisite to a just understanding of this strange assault upon "New School Presbyterians," and virtually also upon the entire body of orthodox Congregationalists in New England. Some attention to this branch of the subject will be no loss to the reader. THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. NO. 1. 1 L I. The first circumstance worthy of note, is the personal paternity of the book under review. It is sometimes interesting to know where a thing comes from. It is especially so in the present case, since the paternity of the book is not the least remarkable among its many remarkable qualities; since also when the former is well understood, common minds will be much aided in comprehending the latter. It is true, that this inquiry is somewhat exterior to the work itself; and needs light from some other source, very happily and timely supplied by a recent and able review from the pen of the Rev. William C. Wisner. This review tells us who Dr. Lord, and the Rev. Mr. Cheeseman, the joint producers of this book, are, by a few fragments of important history; and inasmuch as it may not fall under the reader's eye, we propose to introduce some facts, exegetical of these authors, upon the authority of Mr. Wisner. The main fact is, that both of them are neophytes in the ways, manners, customs, doctrines, &c., of "Old School Presbyterians," as they choose to style one of the divisions of the Presbyterian Church; in respect to one of whom the Presbyterian thinks this an advantage on the score of "a disinterested testimony." The singular, complicated, and withal strangely involved texture of this main fact, will best appear by a few items of history. In respect to Dr. Lord, then the Rev. John C. Lord, it may be observed that when the exscinding act was enacted in 1837, he was a member of the Synod of Genesee; and of course in the infected district; and therefore among the number of those to whom that act applied. He was himself exscinded with the rest of his western brethren. In regard to his views and preferences, touching the well-known controversies and agitations in the Presbyterian Church, prior to the famous act of excision, it is not material to inquire. It is sufficient to observe the Rev. John C. Lord at, or about the time of this notable event. In his introductory chapter, he gives us his modern version of a class of Christians, passing under the cognomen, the proper name of New School Presbyterians;" applies to them the most opprobrious and offensive language; denies their orthodoxy; questions their honesty; and most seriously implicates even their right to be called after the name of Christ. This is Dr. Lord's published opinion in 1848, as we shall show when examining the "Introduction." Now we must confess, that such opinions strike us as not a little remarkable in view of their source. We wonder that he has so soon forgotten his former self; that the oblivious shade of total silence, without the remotest allusion to the past, should have veiled in forgetfulness the events of by-gone time. Any little note of explanation, anything in the shape of an apology, the faintest sign of penitence for former deeds, would have lessened this wonder, but, as it is, we must wonder on till the emotion shall exhaust itself. He does not pretend that "New School Presbyterians," whom he now castigates in such unmeasured terms, have changed since he was one of them. From this hypothesis he has exscinded himself by the chronological era specified in his denunciatory language. No this is not his idea. Has the Dr. himself undergone any changes in the course of ten years? Let all candid persons consider the following facts: In 1837 the Rev. John C. Lord was a member of the Synod of Genesee, and acted as its moderator at a meeting held in October of this year. At this meeting he gave his apparently hearty concurrence to the adoption of the report of a committee of which Dr. Bull was a member; in the preparation of which report, it was well understood at the time that these two brethren "were the principal agents." After its unanimous adoption, "brothers Lord and Bull led the Synod in prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the great unanimity which had characterized their action." This document is inserted at full length in Mr. Wisner's review; and, among other things, is unequivocally declarative of the fact, that the Synod of Genesee is sound in the faith, and maintains an "unwavering attachment to the doctrines and discipline of the Presbyterian Church, notwithstanding the suspicions which have been extensively and industriously circulated against us"-so sound, that the members (Rev. John C. Lord among the rest,) had no idea of being thrust out of the Presbyterian Church by an "unconstitutional" excision. This is what the brother said he thought in October, 1837. Be it further observed, that the Presbytery of Buffalo, of which he was then a member, in responding to a certain "circular," inviting the Presbytery, or a minority of its members, to be represented in a certain vention," about to be held in Philadelphia, did also, Jan. 31st, 1837, unanimously adopt the report of a committee of which the Rev. Mr. Lord was the chairman, and, therefore, presumptively the writer of said report. This is also given in Mr. Wisner's review. From it we learn, upon the authority of the brother himself, corroborated by all his peers, that the charges made against the orthodoxy, good order, and sound Presbyterianism of the "New School" are not true; that the "controversies have not resulted from a difference in doctrinal belief," but, among other causes, "from the love of power, and the disposition to dictate," on the part of some persons, not very ambiguously hinted at, who are fraternally exhorted to practice " the wisdom of confining their efforts to their own charges," namely, their respective churches. We shall have occasion to refer to this report in another connection; we now use it simply to show who Dr. Lord once was, and what he once thought, and would still think, had not some very material changes happened in his history. 66 con Here, then, are some of the facts which excite our wonder; and the emotion is so peculiar, that we cannot resist the tendency to let it subside into the interrogative phase of human thought. Was the Rev. Mr. Lord, in 1837, mistaken in respect to his "New School" brethren? If so, then, in all candor, as an act of justice to himself and the world, he ought, ipsissimis verbis, to say so; and tell us in 1848 of the ways and means by which his honest, but incorrect impressions have been rectified. We can hardly think he was mistaken; he knew them; and they knew him as they thought. We are the more confident in this view, since we have the authority of the "Presbyterian" to support the opinion, that "an ecclesiastical connexion with one of the exscinded synods" may be regarded as having furnished "a favorable position" for knowing the whole truth. We will not assume this plea, until the Dr., declaring it, shall claim its benefit; and then we should feel disposed to that mode of reasoning, called argumentum ad hominem; and would barely suggest, that if the Dr. has been mistaken once, he may be twice-yea, not improbably, since such a phenomenon when he was one of them, would be more remarkable than when he is not of them, by a very plain law of optics. Being of the number now accused, we want to know how this matter stands; we claim the right to know who this accuser is, and whether any changes, and if so, then what, have occurred to himself. Again, was the Rev. Mr. Lord insincere (we make the supposition simply to complete the circle of an argument), in his professed confidence in the orthodoxy, &c., of the "New School" brethren in 1837, touching the points in controversy between them and the "Old School?" If so, then we think the stool of repentance his proper place; and that he should bring forth fruits meet for repentance, by a public confession of the fact, since his act was public, before he introduces another such book to the world with his endorsement, himself imitating, multum in parvo, its most offensive, unjust, and even slanderous qualities. When he so plainly repudiates his own paper, we wish him to explain himself. When he so violently assails his old friends, his ecclesiastical kindred, and makes common cause with their and his former antagonists, himself the boldest gladiator in the use of hard words, we feel startled into the interrogative mood of philosophy. Novel events suggest the doctrine of causation; and we must be indulged a moment longer. What did the Dr. think of these "heresies," when the case of Mr. Barnes was fully traversed before the General Assembly in 1836, and he voted to sustain the appeal of Mr. B.? What means this strange transition? and how has it come to pass? Did anything occur to make the Dr. uncomfortable, "restive and uneasy," among his former associates? Had he lost their "confidence,' and was "his influence" among them for any reasons on the decline? Had he any struggles of mind, any doubtful self-disputations, to settle the question where he should |