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 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 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

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.

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 character. 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

name They do not believe their own standards; they profess this faith, only that they may more effectually deceive the pious public, and secure "the advantages gained by assaulting truth under the shelter of an orthodox creed." In the ear of earth and heaven, Dr. Lord proclaims these allegations-these subjective phenomena of himself. The moral question of evil-speaking we shall leave his conscience and the judgment-day to settle; we simply say, that he has uttered these calumnies, without the slightest effort to prove their truth. Though bitter, they are very harmless words. The speaker has once upon his oath of office and character disaffirmed them all. They much more surprise than grieve us.

We are well aware, that the Dr. may say that all these charges are supported, because the "New School" do not explain every word, phrase, and sentence of the Confession of Faith, according to his ideas; because they do not adopt his philology and philosophy as part of the word of God. When he will give us suitable proofs of his inspiration, or his infallibility as a philosopher or a philologist, then we shall be prepared to take things upon his authority, asking no questions. When he will show his right to speak ex cathedra, in expounding the standards, we shall try to pay all due respect to the same. Is it necessary to be in exact conformity to him, in order not to be justly the subject of his accusations? Has not the General Assembly, the final judge of the standards, in more than one instance, decreed judgment against the Dr.'s present self, his former self once aiding in that decree? Is it indispensable to an honest subscription to the standards, that we take the ipse dixit of Dr. Lord for their import? Alas! which of his ipse dixits must we adopt? History informs us that he has uttered more than one. Must we assume, in the outset, that his version of the Westminster confession is the Westminster confession; or be justly obnoxious to the charges of heresy and dishonesty? If we will not adopt the Dr. as our exegetical oracle, will he indicate his displeasure by resorting to the old game of a hue and cry? To illumine his perceptions on this subject, we propose to make a brief extract from the Biblical Repertory, an authority he will not call in question.

Speaking of a subscription to the standards, as contended for by some, who " are disposed to interpret it so strictly as to make it not only involve the adoption of all the doctrines contained in the confession, but to preclude all diversity in the manner of receiving and explaining them;" the authority thus proceeds: "They are, therefore, disposed to regard those who do not in this sense adopt the Confession of Faith, and yet remain in the church, as guilty of a departure from moral honesty. This, we think, an extreme and a mischievous one. Because it tends to the impeachment of the character of many upright men, and because its application would split the church into innumerable fragments." "It

is making the terms of subscription imply more than they literally import. Two men may, with equal sincerity, profess to believe a doctrine, or system of doctrines, and yet differ in the mode of understanding and explaining them. Such a degree of uniformity never was exacted, and never has existed. The Confession, as framed by the Westminster divines, was an acknowledged compromise between two classes of theologians. When adopted by the Presbyterian church in this country, it was with the distinct understanding that the mode of subscription did not imply strict uniformity of views. And from that time to this, there has been an open and avowed diversity of opinion, on many points among those who adopted the Confession of Faith, without leading to the suspicion of insincerity or dishonesty. It is clearly impossible that any considerable number of men can be brought to conform so exactly in their views, as to be able to adopt such an extended formula of doctrine precisely in the same sense." From the same high authority we learn, that there is a distinction to be made between the leading or essential, and the merely explanatory parts of a confession. "There are, with regard to every doctrine, certain constituent, formal ideas, which enter into its very nature, and the rejection of which is the rejection of the doctrine; and there are certain others which are merely accessory, or explanatory," that is to say, the human philosophy pertaining to the doctrine, in regard to which a subscription does not "imply strict uniformity of views." It may serve further to eclaircise this subject to the Dr.'s perceptions, if we refer him to what President Davies says of the practice in his day. "We allowed the candidate to maintain his objections against any part of the confession, and the judicatures judged whether the articles objected to were essential to Christianity; and if they judged they were not, they would admit the candidate, notwithstanding his objections.' A farther elucidation of this subject may be drawn from what is historically known as the "Adopting Act," of the synod of Philadelphia, in 1729. "And we do, also, agree that the Presbyters shall take care not to admit any candidate but what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said confession. And in case any minister or candidate shall have any scruples with regard to any article of said confession or catechisms, he shall declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, if they shall judge his scruples or mistakes to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, and government. And the Synod do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce, or use any opprobrious terms,

2

Bib. Rep., vol. iii., p. 521, 522, 523, cited in Barnes' Defence, p. 130, 131. Cited in the Christian Spectator for March, 1835. Article: "Remarks on the Act and Testimony."

THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. NO. 1.

2