Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 "convention," 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.

Here, then, are some of the facts which excite our wonder;

[ocr errors]

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

go? Is it that he is a fresh hand, that his conversion is so recent, that he must make up for lost time? How is it, and what is it? Is there any danger of a re-union between the two sections of the Presbyterian Church? Are there "any in our church, who are disposed to discuss the possibility of a union between the two bodies?" Is the Dr. displeased with the doctrine? Have he and Mr. Cheeseman written to veto it? Would he prefer to absorb "New School Presbyterians," rather than unite with them? Again, we say, how is it, and what is it? We want light: give us light. Here is a mystery for the Dr. to explain-no less a one than to settle his own accounts with himself. We would respectfully suggest as a thesis for the editor of the "Presbyterian," that he unravel these incongruities, these mysteries over which we have travelled, "in endless mazes lost;" since he thinks, that "the introductory chapter, by Dr. Lord, is in his usual frank and manly style, and forms an appropriate preface." The "introductory chapter" is materially embarrassed in the essential quality of credibility by the novel position of its author; and be it remembered, that this quality is peculiarly essential, since the "chapter" itself is one of the strangest pieces of composition with which a sensible man ever saluted the public ear. It must receive a mighty impulse from the author; or its fate it would not require the son of a prophet to predict. Here is work for the friends of the book, those who blazon its fame. We hope they will attend to it, and not pass it sub silentio.

In respect to the Rev. Lewis Cheeseman, the other item in this matter of personal paternity, we also have a synopsis in the review of Mr. Wisner. It appears that he was once a member of the Presbytery of Rochester; and that just prior to the exscinding act he was placed at the bar of this Presbytery, on a trial of charges preferred against him by a member of his own church. He was unanimously acquitted, "with the exception of a slight censure for indiscretions.' Soon after this trial, he "retired" for a season from public labors, as a minister of the gospel. When the excision of 1837, and after this, the division of 1838 came along, he escaped from the "New School connexion;" and then came, out, in the language of Mr. Wisner, "a valiant Old School Presbyterian;" his relation with the "New School" being rather "irksome" "upon far different grounds than unsoundness in the faith" among these brethren. Since this period, he also, judging from his book, has given full proof of his change-leaving not the slightest doubt to rest upon any "unprejudiced" mind, that he is now, whatever he may once have been, an "Old School" man. Whether he will continue remains to be settled by time; the inference from the past is as little favorable to himself as to his co

'See Wisner's Review.-pp. 19--21. 'The italics are by the reviewer.

'Presbyterian.

'Wisner's review, pp. 22-24.

adjutor. Changeable things are very liable to change; and it is not possible always to account for their freaks, or guess with certainty what the next one will be.

The reader will now perceive the propriety and purport of a previous remark, that the personal paternity of the book is not the least remarkable among its many remarkable qualities. No one would have supposed that such a tissue of facts was in the rear of these brethren; that they had been so recently matriculated, having hardly had time to shed the exuvia of their former state. Their modern repugnance to "New School Presbyterians" is really a curiosity. Dr. Lord tells us, that the "New School" hold "the theological tenets of the Papacy." Did he hold these "tenets" when himself was a "New School" man, and in 1836 gave his vote to sustain the appeal of Mr. Barnes, that is, "the theological tenets of the Papacy?" Mr. Cheeseman assures us, that the "New School" are about the same thing as "Unitarians:-" does he speak from his own past experience?

If the reader shall inquire, why we disinter the decayed and mouldering identity of these once living men? we shall be very happy to attend to the question. That which is simple to some, is not therefore as simple to all. The facts, we suppose, were well known to Presbyterians in Western New York; but they were not so well known to ministers and Christians in other sections of the country. Among many the inquiry was current: Who is this Mr. Cheeseman? Even the editor of the "Presbyterian," though receiving "an intimation that such a book was in preparation," "had but little personal knowledge of its author," and therefore "felt some solicitude on the subject." The simple truth is, that in respect to a very large circle, the book was an advertisement of the author's existence, ministerial and personal. It is, therefore, due to a just estimate of the spirit and tone of the work, that the history of the Old Schoolism of these brethren, as well as their modern aversion towards the "New School," should be known. The Rev. Mr. Wisner, being on the ground, has performed a service in this respect, with which no candid mind ought to be displeased, in letting the remoter public look a little into the interior of this matter. We thank him for the use of his eyes. Could his historical facts be added to the "Introduction," as a note of explanation, they would greatly perfect the work. "New School Presbyterians," having some sensibilities, have felt themselves injured, so far as this book can harm any one-grossly "caricatured"-vilified and aspersed, not treated with Christian candor or decency; they have felt this injustice on account of the endorsement not only of Dr. Lord, but of others; and it is but natural that they should desire to know whose lips have uttered these strange responses with such oracular infallibility. The history of the oracle itself is a 'The italics are added by the reviewer.

The

very pertinent inquiry in this discussion. We have seen enough of this one-sided, small, not to say, mean business, for which some think themselves so well-fitted, that when we see a new specimen, we like to know where it comes from; and if we are not remarkably obsequious, it is because we have no very great relish for the thing. The "Presbyterian" thinks the book a very discriminating and "thorough investigation”—“ a desideratum❞—not rendered unnecessary even by " Professor Wood's book on the same subject," distinguished by "acuteness" and "heartfelt earnestness," too profound for a newspaper "analysis"-" worthy of being read by every Presbyterian clergyman," "not as a matter of curiosity," but of deep study-"irresistible and unanswerable" by "those who may feel irritated at its conclusions," but who, nevertheless, must give the author "credit for sincerity"-" especially" important "to be read by those, if there be any such in our church, who are now disposed to discuss the possibility of a union between the two bodies." But, as all this is merely a matter of opinion, and as freedom of thought is one of the glories of the age, we choose to say that we differ not a little with the editor of the Presbyterian, and in due season expect to give our reasons. production is anything but a candid, fraternal, and well-sustained statement of the "differences" in question. It is rather a Cheesemanism sui generis. Such a work ought to be willing to tell where it came from; and as this information was not supplied, we confess our obligations to Mr. Wisner for his labors in this department of the public service. His explanatory note we cordially adopt as our explanation of the foregoing remarks. "We regret exceedingly to be compelled to make even the slightest allusion to these painful circumstances; but, when an individual assumes the attitude of a public and wholesale accuser of his brethren, it sometimes becomes necessary, in self-defence, to show the quo animo of his course, by exposing his real position." If not necessary, it is lawful. Such an accuser" has no right to complain. He makes himself public property; invites inspection; and is the last man to read lessons of charity to the accused, gracious in him according to the ratio of his own arrogance. We do not propose to let him pilfer the logical advantage of saying to us "you are heretics," in order that we may try our skill in dialectics to convince him, and such as himself, to the contrary. Some men have the talent to get on the safe side of the onus probandi-to play the game of accusation, so that the accused must appear as respondents, while they, the plaintiffs, of course are not to be questioned, since to question them is by no means the question Not at all; it is not their question. The labors of Dr. Lord and Mr. C. furnish a very luminous specimen of this kind of skill; and not even Dr. Beecher himself can escape their "insatiable thirst" to find 1 Page 23.

66

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »