THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH AND THE WAR.
[One of the principal ministers of the
Reformed Presbyterian church, has re
quested us to republish an article in the Scot
tish Reformed Presbyterian Magazine on
the position of the Synod of the Reformed
Presbyterian church in regard to the 17.
S. government and the present war. The
crowded stste of our columns and the large
space by Prof Steele’s inaugural
address have hitherto prevented compliance
with a suggestion from a source so highly
respectable. Even now, we are obliged to
omit some passages which, however, are
not at all relatively important, but we ap
pend some extracts from a subsequent ar
ticle in the same magazine, elicited by a
reply'inthe 'Amenern ' Covenanter.
It is deemed expedient at least to re
publish the following article from the Ue
formed Presbyterian Magazine, the organ
of our beloved church in Scotland, of Sep:
tember, 1863. I offer no comments upon
it at present. There are some things in
it that I would have stated otherwise;
but these are of little consequence. It is,
upon the whole, a fair estimate of the pre
sent position of our brethren in this land,
who designate' themselves “ Old Lights,”
and us “New Lights,” as well as a clear
exhibition- of the fact, that the continu
ance of the schism of 1833, which was al
ways causeless, would be entirely incon
sistent with the modest advanced and li
beral ground of onr separating brethren.
Consistency demands the healing of the
breach.
Our Scottish brethren have recently had,
from causes similar to those which pro
duced the disruption of our church in
this country, their own difficulties. But
they have nobly passed the Rubicon.
They have well-answered the riddle of the
Sphynx. Their position and that of our
General Synod are identical —Fidelity to
the Testimony of o'ur Fathers, and to our
own Covenant obligations, combined with
Christian moderation and forbearance to
ward brethren in the application of our
principles. But more of this hereafter.
William Wilson.
Cincinnati, Nov. 19</t, 1863.
THE OLD-LIGHT SYNOD IN AMERICA, THE
GOVERNMENT, THE ARMY OATH AND THE
WAR.
It is scarcely necessary to remind our
readers, that the sister Church in America
has, for many years, been broken up into
two nearly equal sections, denominated
respectively “the Synod,” and “the Ge
neral Synod,” of the Reformed Presbyte
rian Church. These are fetter known on
both sides of the Atlantic by the pithier
names of the Old Light and New Light;
and although the justice of the nomencla
is strongly contested by the New Light
Synod, which claims to occupy the old
ground, the designations are too conveni
ent to be laid aside, and .are likely to last
as long as the two bodies remain apart.
The ploughshare of war has been em
ployed by’ the Most High, to break up
the fallow-ground of the higher politics in
America, and both Synods, knowing that
the Lord has intrusted them with truths
for the times, have labored to sow the
good seed. The United States’ Constitu
tion, it seems certain, will undergo some
radical alterations ere the war is finished;
and the two churches, true to the grand
distinctive principle of the Reformed Pres
byterian community, the Head of Christ
over the nations, have been taking steps
to impress upon their rulers and statesmen
the duty of inserting into the Constitution
an explicit recognition of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and of his law, as delivered in the
holy Scriptures. Not content with this,
they have been endeavoring, with most
encouraging success, to stir up the other
evangelical denominations to unite with'
them in the same effort. It is our fervent
prayer that their labors may be prospered.
It seems evident that the large Presbyte
rian denominations of both sides of the
Atlantic are nearer a cordial recognition
of the Redeemer’s universal dominion than
some of us ever hoped to see them. Who
can tell but the conjoint endeavor to ob
tain a national recognition of Christ on
the part of the United States, may be over
ruled as the means of not only healing the
breach in the “Reformed Presbyterian
Church, but of bringing about a still more
extensive union among the Presbyterian
bodies of America ?
So far as respects the high and honora
ble enterprise referred to, there is and can
be no diversity of opinion in either Synod.
It is otherwise with some other matters,
arising out of the war, which have been
coming up of late among the Old Light
brethren. The position occupied by them
since the division, has been somewhat
similar to the one which the brethren who
lately iseceded from ourselves wished the
Scottish Synod to take up. In some
things they go farther, as, for example, in
absolutely prohibiting their members from
sitting in juries, and from " occasional hear
ing;” on other points, perhaps, they do
not go quite so for. The protesters here
would, of course, protest against a man’s
entering the army with or without an
oath. Their position being such as we
have described, could not fail to be seri
ously affected by the breaking out of the
Civil War.
What, in these circumstances, were the
ministers and sessions of the Reformed
Presbyterian Cchurch to do ? They had
taken up the ground that the Constitution
of the United States was so antagonistic
to the law of Christ, that they could neither
vow allegiance to it, nor accept any office,
political, municipal, or military under it.
•On the other hand, they shared in the pas
sionate admiration of republican institu
tions in general, and the American Union
in particular, which is the universal senti
ment of the Northern States; and, he
sides, they felt towards the enslaved ne
groes of the south au intensity of sympa
thy which few of their countrymen shared.
It was impossible they could look pas
sively on, when traitorous hands attemped
the destruction of a Union which, with all
its faults, they deemed the most benign
government under heaven. Above all, it
was impossible for them to endure the
thought that the Union should be broken
up in the interest of a Confederacy that
boasted of having for its chief corner-stone
the divine right of African slavery! Un
der the influence of these feelings, mem
bers of the Church flocked to the national
standards, and, in at least one instance, an
esteemed minister left his congregation for
a season; and became an officer in the
United States’ army. The loyalty of the
denomination was so unsuspected, that in
many eases the members were admitted
without an oath; but in other cases; e’spe
cially in the neighborhood of the boundary
between north and south; the ordinary oath
of “ allegiance to the United States,”* as
tendered to soldiers, was rigidly exacted.
Discussion was inevitable, and discus
sion accordingly took place. The matter
came up to the Supreme Court two years
ago, hut the brethren were not prepared
to give forth any decisive deliverance.
But this would not do. Accordingly, it
came up at the next meeting of Court
(186,2.) A committee, embracing several
of the ablest ministers in the denomination
was appointed to consider it maturely, and
report. The substance ‘of the report and
portions of the discussion follow.
“ The Committee dose by giving an
swers to some queries in. the papers re
ferred to them.
1. “In relation to ministers entering the
army; they reply, ‘ That while we regard
it as the right and duty of ministers, as
well-as others, on necessary* and proper
occasions, to bear arms, yet we are not
aware of any present Occasion requiring
any of our ministers to do so.’” ’
2. “In relation to the Soldier’s. Oath,
we answer, ‘ that as the soldier’s oath is
objectionable, and cannot receive the ap
probation of Synod, We recommend that a
Committee be appointed to prepare a suita
ble form of oath, and endeavor to procure
its sanction by the proper authority.’ ”
3. “ Regarding aliens, we reply, ‘ That
it is not'inconsistent with our principles
for aliens to obtain exemption from draft,
provided they are not required to profess
subjection or allegiance to a foreign go
vernment.’”
“After some questions in relation to a
minority report, presented by J. S. T.
Milligan, were settled, Synod entered upon
the consideration of the report.”
“ After the consideration of some amend
ments, the question was now upon the
original resolution of the Committee. W.
Milroy moved to strike out the latter part
of the answer, and insert words to the ef
fect, ‘But in no case can a minister of the
gospel among us accept a military office
under the United States’ Government as
at-:preseot constituted;’ •J. M, - Wilson
said no doubt Mr. Milroy desired'to settle
the question.that it was not right fbr any
man to do this. If it was not right for a
minister, it was not right for any man; if
it were not right for Covenanters, then it
was not right for others. There was only
one code of morals for all men. (The 1 Mo
derator wished Mr. W. to state the differ
ence between a juryman -and a military of
ficer.) An officer in the army; said Mr.
W., does not become a member of the Go
vernment; his office gives him no civil
connection with it. An army is but the
physical force of a nation—a great club in
the hand of the nation, wielded for the
overthrow of its enemies. If the nation is
wrongfully assailed, then we may and
ought to help it, by adding our force to
thet of others.”
“In support of his amendment, Mr.
Milroy said—l. The great distinctive prin
ciple of this church is the supremacy of
Christ practically carried out. This prin
ciple Mr. Milroy stated' afid developed
very fully and at length. He observed, 2,
Proceeding on this principle, Covenanters
have always dissented from and testified
against the government. While it is true
that the Confederates are in rebellion
against the United States Government,
still that government is in a great rebel
lion against Christ . Before we
would sustain the Government of the
United States,, that government should
have a charter from the great Bill of Bights,
the Bible, otherwise it has .no right to ex
ist. It may be said we are not loyal in
uttering such sentiments. If by loyalty
be meant no sympathy with the rebellion;
then we are a 6 loyal as any. But loyalty
does not require us-to think the United
States Constitution is right. The Pro-,
fessor had last evening taken a most ex
traordinary position, that in entering the
army a man was not in ' homologation ’ of
the government One who holds that po
sition has but a little step or short journey
to go to occupy the position taken by the
majority of the Scottish Synod in its re
cent action. That club is a living, rational,
thinking, and accountable club, in the
hands of, and wielded by a strong man.
He bad no desire to form a part of that
club. He should fear that he should be
dashed to pieces. Why may not ministers
enter the army? 1. Because the object
for which the army is used is only partially
right. As to putting down the rebellion,
it is wholly right; but that is not the
main object of the war. He quoted from
a resolution passed by the House about
two years ago since to shew that the ob
ject of the war is to maintain the su
premacy of the laws, and the integrity of
the Union. 2. Because an im
moral oath in required in order to enter
the army.”
3. Though the object of the war was en
tirely right, yet a minister could not join
with it in the war. Scripture condemns
it. He quoted the case of Asa joining
with Benhadad; Ahaz joining with Tig
lath-Pileser, and other instances. These
are all condemned in the Bible; so in the
ease of Amaziab, who hired 100,0.00 wicked
Israelites. We may not, said Mr. Milroy,
even allow the wicked to join us in self
defence. Mr. Milroy enlarged upon. the
instance of Jehokhaphat and Ahab uniting
*We understand that these terns occur in
the oath,
PHILADELPHIA, Til URSDA I, JANUARY, 7, 1864.
in order to recover Ramoth-Gilead. The
inference he drew from this was, that, how
ever the nation may in some measure have
repented, and however just the war and
its object, yet we must not help the un
godly. 4. Ministers should not enter the
service, because they can do no good.
J. M. Wilson said—l have no prepared
speech to deliver, nor have I any eloquence
to-display, and I would not if I had. That
is not the way this question is to be fet
tled. Mr. Milroy has said the-govern
ment is immoral, and therefore Has no
right to live at all. Mr. Milroy
I meant to have said, ‘before God;’ but,
said Mr. Wilson, we arje not speaking of
rights before God, but,whether this govern-,
ment has a right to defend itself, against,
ruthless rebels. The whole basis of Mr.
Milroy’s speech is a misapplication of the
doctrine that man by bis sin forfeited all
right to live, and so forfeited every other
right. Man by his fall forfeited as before.
God. every right, but as against his fellow
man he has rights which he may plead and
defend. The doctrine of this speech is the
same substantially with that of the Mor
mons, that no one has any right to the
earth but the saints' They sought to carry
out this doctrine at Nauvoo; they were
driven to Utah ; and there the United
States Government is after them now?
He toped they would be driven into the
Pacific.
“If a wicked man has no rights, then a
man has no right to defend his wife when
she is assailed, if she be wicked ; a father
has no right to defend his child, a brother
has no right to defend his sister, unless
the child or the sister are in a regenerate
state. Now, if this be so, mark it well,*!
the premises are wrong, it is & reduction
ad absurdum No man can believe, that a
husband has no right to defend his wife,
or a father his children ; but this
rily follows from the premise that a wicked
-man has no rights, and the conclusion
droves that the premise is wrong.” **
“ Mr. Milroy has brought instances from
the Scripture in reference to alliance of
good with bad kings which God de- f
nounced. But they aire not'revelant. If.
the Southern Confederacy were established,,
and we were, to assist that confederacy in
its iniquity against another nation, then'
these Scripture examples would be in
point. But will Mr. Milroy be good
enough to show us where God denounced
an Israelite for defending bis own govern
ment against unjust and cruel attacks ?
But we have a Scripture example in point,'
2 Kings, xiii, 12-19. Here was a wicked
king, ruler of a kingdom founded in wick
edness, who came to a prophet of the
Lord—and that prophet calls the arrow
which symbolized the victories of that
wicked king‘the arrbw of the Lord’s de-'
liverance,’ and gives express promise of
victory. An example of this kind isiof ?
more force than all fine-spun reasonings.
“ Mr. Milroy has faulted my argument
about the army, and the illustration I used.
He had thought that he was .utyeriug.wbto
every One knew, and all admitted thatito
tering to army did, not connect a man vmh
the institutions of a-country. In oXixjtie-.
vojutionary struggle, many Hastens-were
British soldiers, but they were.not British
men; the civil law had nothing to do with
them, or they with it. Any one in the
standing armies of Europe has no connec
tion with the civil institutions.. So true
is this, that soldiers are deprived of their
civil rights, with a few exceptions. If you
take an army in Europe, there are ip it
men from almost all nationalities, and they
do not become incorporated in the nation
in whose army they are. I believe; said
Mr. Wilson, that these things have never
been contradicted before. They are pot
new—they were not got up for the pur
poses of this war. Why is it that gueril
las are not dealt with as soldiers ? But
because they are not of the armies, but are
party and parcel of the civil institutions.*
They are citizens, not soldiers. Mr. Mil
roy says the club is used against God, I
do not know that this is true. The army
has; fought against bad men, who rose tip
against right. It. liberated thousands of
slaves. When or where had it fought
•against God? \|,
" Mr. Milroy said, any man who main
tained that Covenanters might enter fhb
army was but a short step or journey frditi,
being a New Light. Mr. Wilson quoted?
from the Historical -Testimony to show
that Covenanters had aided their country
in the war of 1812. They ‘generally
thought it their duty to aid in the deMce
of their country.’ ‘While they, refused -to
bind themselves to sinful oaths, they were
willing to expend their property, employ
their influence, tod risk their- lives iii de
fence of their country.’ Mr. Milroy'lias
said they became New Lights. There is
one man, a member of this court; (point
ing to John Z. Wilson, who sat just at the
edge of lbe platform,) who fought in that
war, and he has never looked toward New
Lightism.
“ The doctrine here maintained is, that
the Government has no right to make war
or to defend itself; tod we are not to he:
told that those who maintain it are New
Lights. We follow the footsteps of the
fathers, and he maintained that the men
who 'had gone about the. country saying
that we are leaving the truth, belied the.
fathers, as they had belled us. Some day
we may fight in a foreign, but not in
mestie war. The war of 1812 was to’-se
cure the rights of naturalized foreighers,
Irishmen and others. , This war began in
defence of human righte, and because of
the determination of the Government, not
to yield to the demands of slaveholders.
Now, if the Covenanters of 1812 entered
into that war, who. has got new light when
they denounce us as traitors to Christ ?
“ Mr. Miltoy referred to the resolutions
of Congress in 1861 to indicate the pur
pose of the war. The lower house did
this. It was a bad resolution—such as
men will frame in transition times. How
was it, however, when YaUandigham and
other copperheads wished to have this re
solution re-affirmed, near the- close o? the
close of the last session ? They would
pot re-affirm it; and why ? Because they
did not believe it. The times had gone
beyond that resolution. Mr; Milroy has
referred to the malignants in the time oi
oar .forefathers in Scotland. This- was
not m point now The question was then
as to giving office and influence to men
who were opposed to the truth, and would
use their office and influence to overturn
it. It was now as if the question were—
whether slaveholders or copperheads
.should be elevated to places of power and
trußt ?” Mr. Wilson then briefly touched
upon the question directly before the Sy
nod. He said ministers, as to moral cha
racter, are precisely as other men are. If
it be right for other men, then, as to the
moral character of the act, it is right for
ministers to go. He referred to the ease
of Colonel Clark—a minister at Pittsburg
—who had raised a regiment. A. Steven
son asked if he were a Covenanter ? Mr.
Wilson said the [question,referred to mi
nisters. It was replied, it- is ministers of
’this church. He replied, it did not matter
much', for ministers'of our church are no
better, as such, than the ministers of other
churches; He did not believe, that the
ministers should go unless it were neces
sary. The amendment Was laid on the
table. Ayes 56. Noes 19.
“The second resolution, or the answer
to the second query, was then taken up.
This relates to the soldier’s oath.
“ J. M. Wilson, in lieu of the latter part,
presented the following oath:—l do so
lemnly swear, by the living God, that I
.will be faithful to the United States, and
will aid and defend them against the
armies of the Confederate States, yielding
all due obediance to military orders. ’ Mr.
Wilson explained that ‘United States’
meant the countiy, and that ‘ due ’ was to
show that it was only obedience to right
and justifiable orders. A. Stevenson said
he would swear no such oath. J. R. W.
Sloane said this had been his sentiment
from the beginning. The form of oath
expressed his views. He would vote for
it heartily. Mr. Milroy was not prepared
Tor this; it implies that members of the
-church may enter the army. The form of
oath was adopted. A. Stevenson called
ter the ayes , and nays. (Owing to the
many changes that were made, and the
speedy adjournment of Synod, I could not
ascertain d|i£itely how the vote stood,
but only some;, eight Or ten voted in the
negative, j”
It'wiir be observed that several of the
American brethren advert to the charge of
abandoning the church’s distinctive posi
tion, with which, like ourselves, they have
been pertinaciously assailed. They have
experienced no difficulty in repelling the
’charge, but we are not sure that they have
■been' equally successful in proving that
,there.has been no charge at all. We are
aware of- -the delicacy of .the case, but
think it would have been the wiser and
manlier course to have fttokly acknow
ledged a change, not indeed in the church’s
principles, but in regard, to the practical
application, of them. .The arguments em
ployed to show that their decision involves
ho change at ' all, are reducible to three,
and the reader can judge of their cogency.
1. They plead that they do not sanction
'the ,se ojath, of allegiance-to
the ‘DhSed States 1 Constitution. We fear
this plea will iot bear to be scrutinised. -
For (1.) They have omitted to enjoin
the.exercise iof discipline’ on those mem
bers, and office-bearers of the church who
have’ taken. the oath. It is a significant
circumstance, moreover, that, in the May
number ef the denominational Magazine,
published just before the meeting of Sy
nod, a sensible and well-informed r writer"
to whom the editor assigns the post of
honor, institutes an argument to show
that the ordinary soldier’s oath contains
nothing Inconsistent with the position of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
(2.) It seems to us that whatever ob
jection there may be to an oath of alle
giance must apply With greater strength
to the giving of armed support. To shed
one’s blood in the defence of a govern
ment is surely the the very strongest form
in. which a man can yield to its .his. sup
port
(3.) The soldier’s position, with respect
to the civil- constitution, corresponds ex
actly that kind of the juryman; The Mo
derator’s request to Professor Wilson; “to
state, the difference between a juryman and
a military officer,” was both reasonable
and to the point. We do not find fault
with the metaphor adopted by the profes
sor. As the juryman, once in a box, mnst
cease to judge the law, and must simply
do his part in the execution qj it, good or
bad; bo, undoubtedly, the soldier, once
enlisted, ceases to have a will or a judg
ment of his own, and has simply to .obey
’orders. But surely this fact that the sol
dier consents to become a “ club,” does
not mitigate the responsibility attaching to
his position ; it ought rather to make him
doubly careful respecting the character of
the government under which he enlists.
Clearly, if the juryman is a government
officer, (and we believe he is,) the soldier
is a government officer too. Every go
vernment has two arms by which it exer
cises its power, and of these the juryman
and the soldier are the representatives.
Neither of them need be a citizen, neither
of them need take the oath of allegiance,
but both Of them come under obligation,
by acceptance of office and oath, to do
their part in executing the law, and thus
giving effect to the constitution—the one
in the municipal, the other in the military
sphere.
As regards the term of oath adopted by
the Synod, we have, only to say that it
would“be a very unreasonable government
that would refuse to accept it, unless, in
deed, the rejection were based on the im
policy of. having different forms of oath for
different classes of the community. We
do not know the precise terms of the ordi
nary-army oath in the United States ; but
this we know, that the form our brethren
have drawn up is quite as explicit as the
British oath of allegiance, which, it is well
known, was purposely made as general in
its terms as possible.
2. The character of the present toar is
strongly urged as a reason why Reformed
Presbyterians should support it. Now, we
admit, notwithstanding many strong argu
ments that may be adduced to the contrary,
that the war is, on the whole, a righteous
one, and that the result, if not the design,'
is sure to be the destruction of slavery.
Bdt we cannot, for a moment, admit that it
is not a war in defence of the constitution.
The President we believe to be an hpnest
man, and he has declared, times without
number, and still continues to declare, in
the most solemn .manner, that he has not
and never had, the remotest intention to
break the constitution, or to interfere with
the rights that it concedes to slaveholders.
Accordingly, the infamous Fugitive Slave
Law is unrepealed at this hour. Slavery
has been assailed by President Lincoln just
where the constitution permitted it to be
assailed; protected, wherever the constitu
tion engaged to protect it. On this point
there can be no doubt whatever. A Few
days ago the mail brought us the President's
proclamation, calling for a National Thanks
giving on the 6th of August. In it we
find specified, as the principal cause of
thanksgiving, the “reasonable grounds”
which God in his providence has given
“ for augmented confidence, that.the Union
of these States will be maintained, their
constitution preserved, and their peace and
prosperity permanently secured.” We can
understand how intelligent, and high-prin
cipled men in America, like Mr. Sumner,
should take part in the present struggle, in
the belief that (as indeed Professor Wilson
admirably expresses it) “the purpose of
the war is to be judged by the whole state
of the case,” that any nominal support they
may meanwhile be obliged to yield to sla
very, as guaranteed by the constitution, is
counterbalanced, and more than counter
balanced by the effect which they foresee
will flow from maintaining the constitution
against the Southern Confederacy. We
can understand ; this position. It is precise
ly the position occupied by those conscien
tious Presbyterians and Independents who
hold seats in our houses of parliament;
they say, “ the purpose of sitting in parlia
ment is to be judged by the whole state of
the' case, and this determines that our doing
so is the way to get the constitution reformed
according to the law of God.” We can un
derstand, therefore, the position of Presi
dent Lincoln’s best supporters, in the Re
formed Presbyterian Church and out of it;
but we cannot understand how men, intel
ligent and high-principled as we believe
our Brethren to be, can persuade themselves
that they can go into the war, and yet with
hold their support from the United States
constitution.
Let us not be misunderstood. We are
far from thinking that our brethren by
countenancing their members engaging in
the war, have let down their testimony. Or
abandoned their protest against the evils,
negative and .positive, which they have
hitherto condemned in the American con
stitution. On the contrary, it is our per
suasion, that neither their action nor our
own involves “ an homologation ” (in the
sense in which pur fathers undoubtedly
used the phrase) of aught that is unscriptu
ral in the Constitution of either country.
It has always seemed to us that the Old-
Light Synod have had rather the advantage
over their brethren in the General Synod,
in carefully abstaining from language that
might seem to endorse with approval a con
stitution which recognized slavery; and this
advantage, theydo not.forfeitby theirlate.de
cision.* We wuh it to be distinctly observed,
that while we told that by going into the
war they support the constitution, we attri
bute to >them only that kind of support
which is perfectly compatible with an: honest
acknowledgment of its evil£, and a. consist
ent unflinching protest againt them.
We are well aware that there are.men on
both sides of-the Atlantic who profess inip
bility -to sSe any middle- course between
keeping absolutely aloof and yielding entire
approval and support. But it might easily
be shown that the rigorous application of
.their principle would oblige them to con
demn the -conduct of our - fathers in '-‘the
purest times of-the covenanted reformation,
for, as every one knows, as the covenants
theihselvessbow, they were in allegiance to
the imperfect civil government of their age.
Moreover,-it is neither candour nor common
sense, tp suppose that myriads, of Christians
in Great Britain and America are, taking
the oath of allegiance in a sense that would
involve downright perjury.
3. It is urged, that in taking part with
the Federal government against the:South,
the Reformed Presbyterians of the present
day are,really walking in the steps of their
fathers, who so cordially engaged in the
wars. againstiGreat .Britain. We have met
with this plea before: for we cannot,forget
that the New-Light Synod have all along
urged it in enforcement of their protest
against the justice of the designation given
to them by the popular voice on both sides
of the Atlantic. They claim to be Old-
Light, and. hold that the extreme-antagon
ism to the United States' government
evinced by the other party, prior to the
breaking out of the present war, was really
a departure from the old position occupied
by the fathers of the American Church.
This is a matter, however, in which it would
be presumptous to intermeddle. The Scot
tish Synod has constantly refused to do so.
We have only to say, that if : the recent ac
tion of the Old-light Synod have the effect
of enabling the sister churches to realize
their substantial agreement, we shall un
feignedly rejoice. We have friends, dear
to-ns in the Lord, in both churches; we
believe they have yet a good work to ac
complish in America for Christ,,and we long
to see them striving together faith,
of the gospel.
It is just possible these observations may
be construed as indicating lukewarmness to
wards our Transatlantic brethren in the pre
sent crisis of their nation’s history. But
no one will do so. who knows the real sen
timents of the ministers, and more intelli
gent; members of'.the Scottish Church on
•the American war. Our sympathies are al
togeter on the side of the North, and we
expect great good to result from the present
struggle. We rejoice to see our brethren
in the Old-Light Synod rising superior to a
false regard for consistency, and disdaining
to let their witness-bearing degenerate into
a vicious habit of sitting aloof and snarling
at the movements of the age.
The American Reformed Presbyterian
and Covenanter, the organ of the Synod in
this country, having made some remarks in
reply to the article in the Scottish Magazine,
we find a rejoinder in the Dec. No. of the
latter periodical. After alluding to the
[* This is a misconception of the position Of
the General Synod, which has always admitted
that there were defects in the U. S. Constitu
tion.—Ess. of Baxnxs.]
failure of the attempt to set aside the cogent
arguments presented, several of which are
passed over without any notice, the editor of
the Scottish Magazine refers to Professor
Wilson’s remarkable sophism that the “war
is for the country and not for the constitu
tion,” as if we could have a country without
having a constitution, as it is the constitu
tion which binds our various States together
and makes our government “e pluribus
unum,” of many One. As to “the.object
of the war,” says the editor, “ we imagined,
&c
There could be only one opinion about so
simple a matter of fact.. It seems we were
mistaken. Professor Wilson does not hesi
tate to affirm that the war is “ for thd"’ de
fence of the country, and not for the con
stitution.” If so, theu.pertainly the govern
ment of Abraham Lincoln, which we have
hitherto regarded as entitled to the praise
of honesty, is the most mendacious govern
ment on the face of the earth at this hour;
for however much it may have wavered on
other points, it has never once wavered on
this, but has along proclaimed to the world,
in ever possible way, that the one thing it
is fighting for is the maintenance and defence
of the constitution. We are astonished at
the boldness of Professor Wilson’s assertion.
And yet we can understand what has led
him to take a view of the case so opposed to
patent and indisputable facts. He is too
clear-sighted not to perceive that if the object
of the war is the defence of the constitution,
his Synod, in supporting it, occupy the iden
tical position which they asoribe to the
Scottish Synod—a position considerably in
advance of that which the Scottish Synod
believes itself to occupy. The fact that the
ablest spokesman of the Old-Light Ameri
can Synod finds that he cannot vindicate
the consistency of his .Church in condemn
ing us, except by denying that the war is
for the defence of the constitution, will be
taken by most people on this side of the At
lantic, as a plain prodf that their consisten
cy cannot be defended at all.
TO JOHN GOOD, ESQ., 821 SPRUCE ST.
—The undersigned, having used the “Rich
ardson Premium Air-Tight Sepulchral Cask
ets” in their families, deem .it bnt justice to
say that their many excellent qualities deserve
their approval, andrichlyment public patron
age. They are well calculated for what they
were intended; and, as all*end joints are dis
carded by the invention of circular euds, they
are much more durable, and greatly relieve the
minds of those who may be called to mourn the
loss of the revered and beloved of unhappy im
pressions.
Rev. J. W. Smith, 614 S. Tenth St., Phila.
Richard Gardiner, M. D., 526 Spruce St.
Edward. Hntchinson, 622 Pine Si.
Stuart Hibbler, No. 40 N. Third St.
J. S. Mortoh, 217'South Third St.
Jacob Bartholomew, 908 S. Fourth St.
Dr, David G. Walton, 154 N. Seventh St.
Robert Johnson, No. 514 N. Fourth St.
Wm, C. Flanigenj-1620 Locust St.
Rt. Rev. Thos. M. Clark, Providence, R. L
Rev. Daniel March', 822 Pine Street.
ONE PRICE CLOTHING,
. No. 601 Market St,, Philada.
Made in the latest styles and best manner, ex
pressly for retail; sales.. The lowest selling price
is marked in plain figures on each articles, and
never varied front. ' All goods made to order,
warranted satisfactory, and at the same rate as
ready-made. Our oxe price system is strictly
adhered to, ap we: believe this to be the only fair
way of dealing, as all are thereby treated alike.
JONES & CO.,
601 Market St. , Philadelphia.
YOUNG LADIES ■ INSTITVTE*
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.
NUMBER LIMITED TO THIRTY.
Pudding New and Conveniently Arranged L
Spacious Grounds for Exercise. Charges
moderate.
Next Session commences the First Monday
in September.
For information, address
Rev. THOMAS M. CANN, A. M.,
Principal and Proprietor.
Catalogues can he had at the Music stores of
J. E. Gould, and Lee & Walker. Chestnut st.;
or at the'office of the 1 ‘American Presbyterian.’ ’
july3l ly' ’
JOHN C . ARE I S O N,
NOS. 1 and 3 NORTH SIXTH STREET,
HAS NOW IN STOKE
Gentlemen’s Wrappers.
—FOR—
Holiday Presents.
THE LARGEST ASSORTMENT
IN THE CITY.
FINE FURNISHING GOODS,
WINTER WEAR.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC—ECONOMY
IN FUEL!
FRANCIS FALLS,
No, 539 Race Street,
Invites the attention of the public to the great
saving of fuel by the use of his heating appara
tus. He gUfcranties to heat the main bunding
of a large liouse by one of his Air-tight Gag
consuming Portable Heaters, with a consume
tion of coal not exceeding three tons in the sear
son. He invites the public to test this assertion,
for should it fail, he will forfeit the expenses.
It is also well adapted for the heating oi
churches and stores. _
His long experience in the trade has enabled
him to combine practically- the. different heap
ing apparatus into the above simple arrange,
ment, and of its efficiency he-can furnish innu
merable references.
Many of the' old brick-inclosed furnaces hem
given place to this great fuel-saver.
. N. B.- —He has constantly on hand a large
assortment of Ranges, Cooking Stoves, Parlor
Air-tight Gas consuming Chimney Cow
els, and Registers of all sizes.
Please give him a call.