Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

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.

[ocr errors]

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

1

[ocr errors]

"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

66

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 "corrupted"" portion of the Presbyterian communion," " artfully” concealing "under various disguises from the eyes of multitudes of pious persons" their real sentiments, rejecting the

66

a

distinctive doctrines and features of the Westminster confession," 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 saying what they please. The Dr.'s first idea was, that "the doctrines of grace and redemption," namely, "these great truths," &c., shone so 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 "New School" men. among 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

in regard to "New School Presbyterians." The knowledge of them will aid us in settling the question, with what degree of forbearance, allowance, and charitable construction we ought to contemplate the Dr.'s modern infirmities. For this purpose let a few passages be cited :—

After adverting to the design of Mr. C., he informs us that these "differences," in respect to the "New School" side of the same, are not modern errors, but substantially "the ancient heresies which have been privily brought in, and which have corrupted so large a portion of the Presbyterian communion," that these heresies "are still artfully concealed under various disguises from the eyes of multitudes of pious persons who, could they be made to see them in their true deformity, would not tarry a night under their shadow."--p. 7. Again, "With a strange yet characteristic inconsistency, they caricature the doctrines of grace and of the confession of faith as though they embodied all that was inconsistent, perverse, and monstrous."-p. 7. Again, "The foundation of the atonement is subverted, the work of the Holy Spirit is despised, and man is brought to himself, and to his own efforts and works for salvation, rather than to God and to Christ."-p. 10. Again, "As in Germany, France, Switzerland, and England, the formulas of the Reformation are still professed by churches which are either Arminian or Socinian, and have long been known to be such; so the Westminster confession is still retained by those who reject its distinctive features and doctrines. There are two reasons for this: the one is, error does not appear well in the consecutive order of a confession of faith; is does not bear exposure, and so shrinks from the light. The other is found in the advantages gained by assailing truth under the shelter of an orthodox creed."-p. 11.

[ocr errors]

There is much more of this same kind of matter in the Introduction;" let this, however, suffice on the score of revelations. We hardly know in what way to make a comment upon such language. Without at all touching the question of the Dr.'s moral veracity, we say in respect to its objective truth, that greater untruths were never published. Will the reader carefully examine the passages? The attack is made upon the orthodoxy not only, but also the honesty and sincerity of "New School Presbyterians; yea, it even seriously implicates their Christian charac

ter.

He charges them with artful "disguises;" understands perfectly the baseness of their motives; is acquainted with their perjury, and its wicked reasons, when they adopt and continue nominally to retain the confession of faith. Theirs, according to him, is the horrid deed of caricaturing the precious "doctrines of grace," despising "the work of the Holy Spirit," and sending a sinner to "his own efforts," rather than to Christ, for salvation. They are, in fact, no church of the living God, except in the

« ПредишнаНапред »