heresy; yea, more than this, for President Edwards, that prince of theologians, and acute metaphysician, by his "treatise on the nature of virtue," infected New England with the fundamental principle of the "New School" heresies. Since all depends upon the authority of these brethren, candid men, who have no party purposes to serve, or spleen to gratify, wish to know what is the degree of credibility properly belonging to that authority. This is a vital question in estimating testimony; and for its solution we are compelled to study the history of the witnesses. The reader, perhaps, has enough of this history, to answer all the purposes of a practical judgment.

II. The next circumstance, claiming attention, is the local and special mission of this modern attack upon " New School Presbyterians." It appears from a correspondence between the principal author and Mr. Gabriel Longmuir and others, that what is now a book, was originally delivered as a series of "lectures" to his own people in Rochester. Those, who having heard them requested their publication, declare that they had listened to them "with no little degree of interest;" also express the opinion, "that their publication at this time will do great good to the cause of truth in Western New York," The lectures impressed these gentlemen, in one respect, as the work will, doubtless, the general reader, that the author had Western New York particularly in his eye-primarily, perhaps the Presbytery of Rochester, and, by a little elongation of his vision, the Synod of Genesee. The book is a production about matters and things professedly general, yet bearing very distinctly the imprint of locality.

What occasion there was for these "lectures" in Western New York, what was the special purpose they were to serve, the "great good" they were to accomplish, we shall show at large, when examining the quo animo of the author himself. To avoid repetitious quotation of the same matter, we will for the present state a conclusion, and ask the reader to note our pledge to prove its truth in a future stage of this review. The conclusion is simply this; that Mr. C., being an "Old School" Presbyterian, by some means received an impression, that there were here and there scattered in the Synod of Genesee, individuals, churches, and perhaps ministers, who, though according to Dr. Lord "sound in the faith," were, nevertheless, strangely obstinate or ignorant in remaining in the "New School connexion;" and, furthermore, that these said individuals, churches, and ministers were susceptible of being sifted or warned out; in which event they would "at once unite with the Synod of Buffalo," the "Old School" banner in Western New York. This objective appearance was the outward circumstance, the occasional cause, which called the

The italics are added by the reviewer, as in very many other passages to be hereafter cited-simply for greater perspicuity.

author from his comparative retirement. And that there is more truth than poetry in this view, we expect to show in due season, taking the book for our sole authority. It is a book for the times, and for Western times, revealing its birth-place by other evidences than the residence of the author.

If the "lectures" and the book contain the same matter, then the author, when the preacher, must have supposed, that "these brethren," these "decided Presbyterians," were within hearing distance; for surely he would not have lectured them so gravely over the backs of a little congregation in Rochester, by an arrogant misnomer styled the "First Presbyterian Church :" or, he must have had a hint, perhaps a dream, at least a faint suggestion, that what was "at first prepared for the pulpit, and not for the press," might, having done some service in the first, also do another service in the second capacity. He certainly preaches as if he expected to publish—addressing his own people and at the same time "these brethren"-confirming the one, and inviting the other to connect themselves with "our cause." All this may be in admirable congruity with the plan; but, in view of the nature of the "subject," we exceedingly doubt its wisdom, if truth be the object, and light the medium. The subject of "differences" is one having so many sides, attended with so many difficulties-requires such elaborate argument and acute discrimination-that, if not merely a popular impression, but a clear eclaircissement of the truth be the object, most men would choose at once to make a book, and not preach a series of "lectures." It may be a very fair question, also, whether such a discussion is not likely to be very much embarrassed by the local and peculiar purpose it is to To argue the "differences" under the influence of such a moral diathesis, to say the least, is not favorable to the equilibrium of the logic. The author has chosen for himself an unhappy position to accomplish his professed, though it may not be in view of his real, object. A wider induction, a broader sweep of observation, more extended research and reading, the citation of authorities, "Old School" as well as "New," their minute comparison, definitions and distinctions, proofs and not mere assertions; all this might have so modified and increased the space-penetrating power of the author's vision, that, instead of seeking out "these brethren" wandering by a mistake in the "New School" Presbyteries of Western New York, and providing for them a safe ingress into his own ecclesiastical encampment, where their "position,' "efforts," and "influence" will be favorable to "our cause;" instead of this merely local work, he might have given us a book on "Differences" for the country, if not for the world-a book convenient for future use, a light to shine long after his "cold remains" shall have mouldered "underneath the clods of the valley." We

'See page 21.

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 "MANNER in which "Mr. Cheeseman has presented his subject." The attribute of this manner is, that it "appeals to the pious feelings, to the Christian emotions of every renewed heart." We have no objection to such appeals in their proper place; on the contrary, 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

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 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