THE

BIBLICAL REPOSITORY

AND

CLASSICAL REVIEW.

THIRD SERIES, NO. XVII.-WHOLE NUMBER, LXXIII.

JANUARY, 1849.

ARTICLE I.

OLD AND NEW SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANISM.

By REV. SAMUEL T. SPEAR, Brooklyn, N. Y.

Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians. By REV. LEWIS CHEESEMAN, Rochester. Published by Erastus

Darrow.

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.

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 his

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 "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;

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.

2 Presbyterian.

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