FRANCIS MAKEMIE AND THE QUAKER
KEITH.
BY REV. E. H. GILLETT, D.D,
It is natural that all who take an in
terest in the history of the Presbyterian
Church in this country, should welcome
any new facts concerning its father and
founder, Rev. Francis Makemie. His
zeal and energy in crossing the ocean
and in visiting New England, in order to
secure fellow-laborers to assist him in
his broad field, are well-known, and we
have quite a full account of his arrest,
imprisonment, and trial, for having
preached a sermon in the city of New
York. But little is known of his early
history.
From a volume of his, in reply to the
Quaker, George Keith, who had attacked
a catechism, which he had drawn up for
the instruction of the young, we have
gathered some interesting facts. Keith
had troubled the Quakers greatly. In
Philadelphia (1691,) he headed a party
among them, which was opposed bitterly
by Thomas Lloyd, President and Deputy
Governor of the Colony, and twenty
seven other “ pretended” Quaker
preachers. He had urged them to pub
lish “their fundamental truths and prin
ciples as a confession of their faith,” a
thing which had never yet been done.
The project was vexatious and exaspe
rating, and the opposing parties called
each other hard names. Keith charged
his opponents with partiality, ignorance,
.and unbelief. They styled him the
JReviler and Accuser of the brethren out
of Babylon, Father Confessor, Pope, and
Primate of Pennsylvania. He com
plained of their loose discipline, and
drew up a plan for rendering it more
strict. It was in vain that a committee
from London endeavored to promote
peace. They condemned Keith for the
separation, and pronounced woes upon
him. He replied by calling the whole
meeting “ignorant heathen,” and saying,
in answer to their teachings, that “if
there is light sufficient to salvation in
all men without the man Christ, then
an honest heathen is a true Christian.”
Keith now broke off from the Society,
and set up a meeting of his own, first at
his own house; and afterward at the
“ Barbadoes’ House,” in Philadelphia.
He issued several pamphlets, and suc
ceeded in securing a decision of the New
Jersey Quakers in his favor. The meet
ing in Maryland, however, decided
against him. But he was not a man to
submit quietly 'to an adverse judgment.
He traveled abroad to defend himself
and propagate his views. . He extended
his journeys northward into New Eng
land, to the disquiet of the Boston min
isters, including the two Mathers, and
southward to Maryland and Virginia,
where he came in contact with Makemie.
The very grounds upon which he differ
ed from his Quaker brethren, and the
plausibility with which he commended
them to persons outside of his own sect,
rendered him more dangerous as an
aggressor. In Maryland he met with
Makemie’s catechism, and unhesita
tingly arraigned it for errors and omis
sions, placing his strictures in the hands
of one of Makemie’s, people. Makemie
could not remain silent. He drew up
his answer, which was published at Bos
ton iin 1694, by Benjamin Harris. It
bore the “ Imprimatur” of Increase
Mather, and is commended as the “ sea
sonable and profitable” work of its
“ Reverend and Judicious Author,” by
the Boston ministers, Increase Mather,
James Allen, Samuel Millard, John
Baily, and Cotton Mather.
Makemie says in this book—and the
words were verified in his subsequent
imprisonment in New York, at the in
stance of Lord Cornbury—“l have
greater and better work than controver
sy to follow; but, in the strength of the
Lord, shall not only defend my principles
still by writing, but if called thereunto,
shall readily seal them with my blood.”
Against Keith he defends his catechism
with signal ability, and in doing so,
gives us some important facts in his own
life. Keith had charged that Makemie
in his catechism had mentioned nothing
“of his own experience of the work of
God in his heart.” To this Makemie
replies—“ lam constrained to justify
my office from these uncharitable calum
nies, and that grace might be magnified
.by giving this relation in the sight of an
All-seeing and Omnipotent God, that ere
'I received the imposition of hands in
scriptural and orderly separation unto
my holy and ministerial calling, that I
gave requiring (requisite ?) satisfaction
to godly, learned, judicious, discerning
men of a work of grace and conversion
wrought on my heart at fifteen years of
age, by and from the pains of a godly
school-master, who used no small dili
gence in giving souls to God’s service
and fear; since which time, to the glory
of his free grace be it spoken, I have had
the sure experiences of God’s various
dealings with me, according to his infi
nite and unerring wisdom, to my un
speakable comfort, whereby all may see
how far grace is expected and desired,
with gifts to qualify for the ministerial
office; for not only was this required of
me, but it is expected of all ordained by
presbyters.”
Keith had asserted that Makemie re
garded ministerial maintenance as a
main thing. “ Let the reader,” replies
Makemie, “ examine my catechism, and
he shall not find ground for this mali
cious reflection; for it is expressed in as
few words as any other duty, “without
insisting thereon, and this was the ex
THE AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1865
pression of an absolute stranger to me,
and my practice in relation to a mainte
nance, to which I am bold to assert I
have been ever undenied as Keith, or
any of his brethren. And whatever
others have done, I dare affirm, I never
bargained with any people about a mainte
nance, and. have oft refused money when
freely offered, and never enjoyed any
maintenance but what was most freely
offered to me, though I deny not to the
magistrate a power of determining main
tenance, when necessity requires it.”
Makemie elsewhere insists on the pro
priety of a competent maintenance for
ministers, that they may not be entang
led or encumbered with secular affairs,
or diverted from their holy calling. But
from his language we may infer that he
provided for his own support by the pro
fits of the commercial transactions in
which he is said to have-been employed,
and was thus enabled to preach, the Gos
pel free of charge. He speaks of the
deplorable ignorance of the people
of Virginia, and refers to the lan
guage addressed to him by Daniel Acres,
a Quaker preacher in North Carolina,
who said that it bordered on blasphemy
to call the Scriptures the Word of God.
He refers also to his experience among
the Quakers of Barbadoes, and to a
preacher whom, he says, “ I lately saw
in London.’,’ His repeated mention of
the slanders uttered by the Quakers
against the New England ministers, mani
fests his strong sympathy with them;
and the references he makes to the writ
ings of the English Puritans, as Alleihe,
Coles, Burgess, &c., indicate plainly
enough the theological treatises with
which he was most familiar.
In the course of his reply to Keith, he
sets forth quite distinctly and fully his
doctrinal views. He vindicates the lan
guage of his catechism on the Trinity,
on the sole and supreme authority of the
Scriptures, on the offices of Christ as
Prophet, Priest and King, on “ the most
unanimous and received doctrine of the
Reformed churches, that whom Christ
died for, he absolutely and completely
redeemed, and that was, some select and
chosen number, given Him of God the
Father,” on the perseverance of the
Saints, the sanctity of the-Sabbath, &c.
The endorsement which the work receiv
ed from the Boston ministers shows how
fully they agreed with Makemie in the
main points which he vindicated.
It is evident that Makemie’s relations
to the Dissenters in an around London,
and to the ministers of Boston, were quite
friendly and intimate. Through them
he sought to obtain laborers for the des
titute field around him in Maryland and
North Carolina, and possibly in Virginia.
His repeated visits to London, his ex
tensive acquaintance in Old and New
England, and the evident respect which
his character and abilities commanded,
indicate his peculiar fitness for the diffi
cult part which, as pioneer of the Presby
terian Church in this country, he was
called to fill, and which he filled so effi
ciently and so wisely.
THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
PERIODICALS OF GERMAN?;
In this article, and two or more to
follow, we propose to give a general view
of the theological and ecclesiastical pe
riodicals of Germany. We shall follow,
in the main, the classification and details
of a series of articles published in the
Neue Evangelische Kirchenzeitung&mmg
the first three months of the present
year.
The whole mass of such periodicals
may obviously be divided into Protestant
and Roman Catholic. And in each
division we may make subdivisions into
rationalistic or heterodox/positive and
rigidly orthodox. In point of number,
the advantage is slightly with .the Ro
man Catholic periodicals, and they ex
hibit, moreover, greater unanimity than
the Protestant, but the latter are far
more influential, owing to. the superior
scientific and literary ability with which
they are conducted.
The first thing to be noticed concern
ing the rationalistic portion of the Pro
testant periodical press, is the great
change which fifty years have wrought,
in its numbers and influence. At the
opening of the present century it had
well nigh an exclusive supremacy ; now
it is represented by only three principal
publications, with a few others of inferior
grade. And not one of the three first
class organs of this tendency is so ex
clusively rationalistic as to refuse the
co-operation of a more positive school.
First under this subdivision may be
mentioned Hilgenfelds, “ Zeitschrift fur
Wissenschaftliche Theologie ,” an organ,
as the name imports, of scientific theology
of the rationalistic type. It appeared
in 1858, as a continuation of Baur’s and
Zeller’s “ Theologisches Jalerbuch,” but
with important modifications- for the
better. It evidently is intended to pass
over by slow stages to a more positive
belief. Next, we have the “ Protestant
ische Kirchenzeitung,'” the organ of that
theologicol party, known as the Schleier
macher Left. It has been published at
Berlin for eleven years. The editor is
Dr. H. Krause, who has several assis
tants, the most prominent of whom is
Dr. A. Schweizer, of Zurich; the most
learned of all Schleierinacher’s pupils of
this party. Credner, of Geissen, and
Jonas, of Berlin, have been among its
•contributors. Several of the more recent
articles have shown a tendency towards
the Schleiermacher Centre by admitting
the reality of the Christian miracles; but
in general, the tone is completely nega
tive. It denies of Christianity all that is
supernatural, and is unfavorable to all
church forms of Christian life, thus re
viving the vulgar rationalism of earlier
times. The tone of its criticism is bit
terly destructive. It is an oracle for
“ liberals,” and “ friends of progress,”
and exerts throughout the Austrian
empire an unwholesome influence which
no German organ has been able to coun
teract. The third leading periodical of
this class is Dr. Schenkel’s “ Allgemeine
Kirohliche Zeitschrift .” Through its
columns, Dr. Schenkel advocates the re
construction of the whole Christian
Church on the basis of the Parish. It
is to be recommended for its full and in
genuous notices of new works, and for
its quarterly chronicle of events in both
C hurch and state. It is now in the sixth
year of its existence. Besides these
three leading periodicals, there are others
of secondary and purely local significance;
the “Suddeutsch evangelisch-protestant
ische Wochenblatts,” which espouses
Sehenkel’s church democracy, and gives
the latest results of the negative criti
cism to the sympathizers in. Baden and
Pfalz ; the “ Predigt der Gegurwart,”
conducted by an association of the clergy
of Weimar, Turingen and Hesse; and
the " Zeitstimmen,” which reflects the
pantheistic naturalisrii of the theological
faculty of Zurich.
Passing now to the periodicals of the
positive Protestant type, it is to be no
ticed that they are more than three times
as numerous as the heterodox. For the
" Proiestantische Kirchenzeitung,” there
are three corresponding positive organs ;
for Schenkel’s and Hilgenfeld’s publica
tions, there are at least six or eight of
no less scientific importance; for the
local press, there are five or six times as
many. The term “ positive” is necessa
rily used with considerable latitude, so
that we may group the periodicals of
this type according to the degree in
which they are positive.
In the first group we embrace four
leading periodicals, which are not so de
cidedly positive, but represent the party
kdown as the Schleiermacher Right.
These are (1.) “ Gelzer's ProtestantiscJie
Monatsblatter,” published since 1852, by
Dr. H. Gelzer, Professor of History and
Literature, assisted by Dormer, J. P.
Lange, Hagenbach, Schlottmann, and
others. It is devoted to the inner history
of the times, opposing, on the one hand,
Romish superstition and hierarchical as
sumption, and giving, on the other hand,
information as to the task and .labors of
the Christian present in the foreign and
inner missions. If sometimes, in oppo
sing the strongly conservative tendencies
of the Lutheran Church, it displays a
bitterness like that seen in the publica
tions of Krause and Schenkel, the well
known names of the editors are sufficient
guaranty for its general Christian spirit.
(2.) The “ Theologischen Studien und
Kritiken,” which is the- oldest and most
honorable of all German periodicals de
voted to theological science. For thirty
seven years it has maintained its stand-,
point, answering to the’ Schleiermacher
positive school, or-the so-called accommo
dation theology, without, however, in
later years, excluding the co-operation of
many strongly orthodox theologians.
Dr. C. Dllmann was, until the present year,
the principal editor. TJmbreit,then Rothe,
afterwards Hundesbagen and Richur,
and at present Nitzsch, J. Muller and
W. Beysehlag, appear as assistants. The
last rprospectus gives us assurance that
it, will continue to espouse the Gospel of
the Scriptures without abridgment. (3.)
“Zeitschrift fiur Historische Theologie,”
first published in 1832, and since 1846
conducted by Christian W. Nieduer,
Professor of Christian History in Berlin.
It is designed to enrich the,,domain of
historical investigation by authentic
statements of the component facts of the
development of Church History, and by
giving original records from both ancient
and modern times. Ebrard’s sketch of
the Culdee Church first appeared in this
periodical. (4.) “ Allgemeine Kirchen
zeitung,” a repository for the latest'
historical information and statistics
of the Christian Church. It was
founded in 1822, by G. Simmermann, at
Darmstadt. Since then it has under
gone many changes. Originally, it was
the organ of pure rationalism; then of
rational suprarnaturalism; then of the
unionistic accommodations, theology of a
believing type ; and now under the
editorship of K. Zimmermann, is more
positive, while not supporting the Con
fession. It leans towards the Gustav
Adolph Yerein, and is
dinarian from employing writers of dif
ferent schools. The “ Theologische Lit
eraturblatt,” under the same manage
ment, is a weekly publication, devoted
to book notices and criticism. After ex
isting forty years, it is suffering from a
falling off in the subscription list; a fact
whichpointstoadecline of interest in such
subjects among the working cltsfgy.
Affiliated with the above are certain or
gans of an essentially practical tenden
cy,as “ Bote dee Gustav-Adolph Vereins,”
by Zimmermann ; also, “ Sountagsfeier ,”
a monthly, devoted to pulpit eloquence
and edification; and sundry other homi
letical periodicals, as “ Homiletische
Vierteljalersschrift, ” “ Pastoralblatt fur
die Evangelische Kirche,V by Pastor
Olely, and others.
In the second group there are two
leading periodicals. Many of. the for
mer class lean to this side, and it is hard
to draw a line with precision. Yet a
fundamental distinction is, that the
organs of this second group hold to a
firmer dogmatic basis, and are more
energetic and lively in defending it
against neological innovations. Their
advocacy of union is also more intensely
Christian' in its character. While those
of the former class advocate an unde
fined or absorptive unionism on the foot
ing of an accommodation theology, these
hold a union without absorption—a con
federation or brotherhood of Christians,
without merging minor differences in
the great Christian life, namely, the
foreign and inner missions. They are,
(1.) “Jahrbuch fur deutesche Theolo
gie,” dating from 1856, edited by Dor
ner, Palmer, Weizfacker, and others.
This periodical reflects the Schleier
macher emotional theology as deepened
and enriched by mystical speculative
elements of Sehelling’s philosophy, and
Yetinger’s and Baader’s theosophy. It
is characterized by a careful elaboration
of the christological dogma, and by a
system of purely scientific apologetics
These features chiefly distingiush it from
the “ Studien u, * Kritiken .” The princi
pal editors of “ Deutsche Zeitschrift fur
Ghristliche Wissensschaft und' Ghristi
ches Leben, have been associated with
the above. The “Deutsche Viertel
jahrsshnft fur Englisch-theologische
Forschung,” is *a kind of appendage to
the Jahrbuch. (2.) The “ Neue Evan
gelische Kirchenzeitung,” is the organ
of the Evangelical Alliance.
As such, it labors to promote a more
intimate intercourse and more whole
some exchange between English and
German theology, not in a specifically
theological view, but taking in the whole
range of ecclesiastical manifestations
and interests. To this same group
belong several homiletical publications,
as ■“ Gesetz und Zeiigniss,” by Pastors
Leonardi and Zimmermann. Also seve
ral organs of the foreign and inner mis
sions, as “ Evangelische Missions-Maga
zin,” published at Bash. Galwer Mis
sions blatt,” “ Friebensbote for Israel ,”
and the organ of the Gossner’s mission,
“ Biene auf dem Missions felde.”
A sketch of the Lutheran periodicals
of rigidly confessional tendencies must
be reserved for a future communication.
M.
NAMES AND THINGS.
Disputes about words may seem to
many but as “idle words;” but words
are themselves things, and have a power
of their own. “ The word was with
God,” not only, but “ was God.”
Trench, in his “ Study of Words” says,
" When, at the beginning of our civil
wars, the parliamentary party styled
themselves ‘The Godly/and the royal
ists, ‘The Malignants,’ it is very certain
that, wherever they could procure en
trance for these words, the questionjupon
whose side the right lay was already
decided.”
Now a great deal of' the , vacillating
policy, and many of the mistakes made
in the war against the great rebellion
have arisen from the misuse of words.
It was a long time before the people,
and the Government, and the army, and
especially officers of the regular army,
whose profession and business was war,
could realize that secession was' rebel
lion- Almost necessarily, from their
education, the-latter looked upon the two*
armies as having equal rights and en
titled to equal privileges, standing on an
equal footing, and engaged merely in a
trial of strength and skill; the right to
be decided by the issue of the game
which the two armies were playing.
When, early in the war, while a
chaplain in the army, I advocated a more
thorough ' policy, as against rebels who
had forfeited every right by rebellion, a
policy similar to that which was par
tially carried out by Sheridan in the
Yalley, it was a very common reply to
me; “ How would you like to have the
Confederate army carry out that policy
in Pennsylvania?” as though it was right
for the rebel army to fight us if they
would keep within the established usages
of what is termed “ honorable warfare.”
The question seemed to me like asking
a sheriff who has just hung a condemned
criminal, “ How would you like a mur
derer to treat you in this way ?” That
which would be perfectly right for the
officer of the law to do, would be but an
additional crime in the other; so, that
which would be perfectly right for the
National army to do, would be an ad
ditional crime in the rebel forces who
had already committed the all-embracing
crime of rebellion. .
The power of words and names is
seen in the readiness with which the
soldiers of the National army adopted
the nick-name of “Yankees,” so persis
tently applied to them by their enemies;
-aadUL have, no question that, if Beaure
gard’s order to call ours the “ Abolition”
army, and our soldiers, “Abolitionists,”
had been carried out, it would very
speedily have made them abolitionists,
which they certainly have never been.
I have heard (jermans who could scarcely
speak English at all, and Irishmen with
the most marked brogue, speak of them
selves as Yankees with as much satis
faction as any New England man.
It is for this reason that I have never
allowed myself to say “ Federal army”
and “ Confederate army,” but always,
“National army” and “Rebel forces;”
and while a prisoner in their hands, in
conversation with rebel officers, I have
said to them, “ We are the national police,
quelling a riot and putting down a mob.”
When you have said “ Federal” and
“ Confederate,” you have already given
up so much by these “ question-begging
appellations,” that there is nothing left
worth fighting for; as when a man call
ing himself a “Baptist” offers to discuss
the question of baptism with me, what
is there left to discuss, if he is a Baptist
and I am not?
So in the matter of constitutional
rights, how much confusion there has
been alike among loyal men and rebels,
as though rebels had any rights left but
the right to the gallows and the halter.
I have met with rebels at their own
tomes, where, with wonderful simplicity
and forgetfulness of their position, they
would speak of their rights under the
Constitution, and what Mr. Lincoln had
a right to do with them under that Con
stitution, as though their repudiation of
that document had left them with the
same rights and privileges as before.
The same want of a proper sense of
the criminality of rebellion is seen in
the greater indignation with which
special acts of cruelty, as at Anderson
ville, or the murder of negro soldiers
and their officers, or Champ Ferguson’s
crimes, are visited than the great crime
which includes them all, and in the special
hatred of these minor officials and tools
of the great leaders, with perhaps a half
unconscious admiration of those greater
criminals, Lee and Davis.
And is not the Government itself beset
by some such false estimate of crime,
when it hastens to hang the would-be
murderers of individual men, but hesitates
to punish those who aimed at the nation’s
life, and waded in the blood of thousands
that they might reach, if possible, the
throat of the ' nation ? And will the
Government still seek to hide its punish
ment of him who has been the chief
criminal of all, under the charge of com
plicity in the minor, though possibly
more disgusting, crime of assassination ?
What are these minor crimes of in
dividual murder, starvation and mutila
tion, when once you are a rebel ? What
ever is necessary to the success of the
rebellion, is all easy when once the Ru
bicon is crossed.
Let things be called by their right
names, and crimes be judged according
to their heinousness, and let the immo
rality of wrong names be understood,
and there will be less of crime. He
who is proud to be a “ partisan ranger”
would be ashamed to be a “ guerilla.”
CIRCULAR LETTER OF HOLSTON PRES-
BYTERT.
Circular Letter addressed by Holston
Presbytery to Presbyterian Ministers
and Churches witliin it bounds.
. Inasmuch as our action is very liable
to be misconstrued, we deem it proper to
lay before the churches and the public a
more formal statement of the principles
that govern our present movement.
We believe that no government has
ever yet been in the world, that more
clearly than ours recognized the great
principles of liberty, justice, and equality.
Our constitution is more thoroughly
based upon the great principles of the
Bible, than the fundamental law of any
nation upon the globe. Hence the in
junction, “to be subject to prinipalities
and powers ;” to make “supplication,,
prayers, intercessions, and of
thanks for kings and for all that -are in
authority;” “to be subject unto the
higher powers” as to “an ordinance of
God.” These injunctions fall with more
force upon a subject of our government
than they did upon those to whom they
were originally addressed, dwelling as
they did under the reign of the Roman
Hero.
While the great Founder of the Hea
venly Kingdom has prescribed no form
of civil government to be adopted by the
member's of his kingdom; while mere
political principles as such, are not made
a test of discipleship ; he does require
obedience to the civil ruler. At the call
of duty, the disciple of Christ can go
into any kingdom and live under any
government, but obedience to that gov
ernment is required. And if obedience
were required, when one of royal blood,
and tyrant too, was upon the throne,
much more do the Scriptures require
obedience to a government recognizing
the great principles of liberty, justice,
and equality.
Hence we believe that men who have
sought the overthrow of our Government,
have committed a real sin, and that the
Bible expressly condemns of sin; and
that the ministers of religion, who helped
to form the public sentiment which
ripened into rebellion, and who gave that
rebellion their sanction and their prayers,'
have committed a great wrong; a wrong
so great as to require a full acknowledg
ment, and untiring effort to repair the
mischief done.
Now, as a matter of fact, how few
ministers of Southern sympathies do not
claim to have been right in all they have
done, and refuse to make any atonement
for the evil of their course ? Indeed,
they claim their full rights under a gov
ernment, which, for four long years, they
have sought to destroy, and for whose
destruction tKey have earnestly prayed.
At the hands which they have wished
might beparalyzed, they claim protection
and freedom.
Accordingly, we urge, these, our mis
taken brethren, to confess the wrong they
have done, and to “ surrender uncondi
tionally.” We think that it would be in
much better taste for them to come back,
like the prodigal son, and ask to live
under our Government upon any terms
that might reasonably be prescribed,
than to demand rights which they have
forfeited.
It is alleged, that this would be moral
suicide; that ministers pursuing such a
course would annihilate themselves. Not
certainly, if they are dead already If
their ability to do good with the pre-'
dominant part of the population of this
land is gone; if they have lost their in
fluence with the men who have borne
the nation’s flag above the dust and
smoke of battle, nothing that they can
do can more completely slay them.
And when we ask them to restrain
from the functions of their office, so long
as their brethren might think necessary
for the honor of religion, we only as
them to take one step towards reinstat
ing themselves in the confidence of the
community. And when we refuse the
right hand of fellowship, we do not pre
sume to bar the gates of life against
them. We only say that we cannot
sanction their unscriptural conduct. God
is their judge, and not we. If they can
find others that are like minded, and that
will fellowship with them, we have no
disposition to interfere with their enjoy
ments, should the rulers of the land see
fit to grant them the privilege of per
forming the functions of their office.
With a view of palliating the. Wrong
that they have done, it is alleged that
they have only preached the Gospel, and
acted as subjects of Him who said that
his kingdom was not of this world.
Would that we could thus regard their
conduct! Was it as members of Christ’s
spiritual kingdom that they so earnestly
prayed tor the President and Cabinet of
these Confederate States, that all of-their
enemies, vandal hordes who were invad
ing their homes, might be driven back—
be put to shame—be smitten with con
fusion and blindness—bite the dust in
death—and be utterly wasted ? Was it
as members of Christ’s spiritual king
dom that they gave such eloquent expo
sition of prophecy, and brought Isaiah,
David, and Daniel to the stand to fore
tell the great things of the Confederacy,
and showed its success to be as certain
as the existence of God? Was it as
members of Christ’s spiritual kingdom
that they spoke words of approval to the
enemies of our Government on the street,
at the market, in the counting-room, in
the parlor, in short, in every place where
men talked over the news of the day ?
Did they, as members of Christ’s spirit
ual kingdom, act as chaplains in "the
Southern cause, not confining themselves
to thejeffiporal and spiritual wants of
the sick, the wounded, and the distressed,
but oftentimes, with a chivalrous bra
vacb', rushing forward into the fierce
engagement, not afraid to send men into
eternity unprepared ?
Ho it is not against abstract opinions
that we protest; but against action—de
cided action.
D. G. M.
We may be charged with producing
schism in the church, and causing deri
sion among brethren. This certainly
does not come with a good grace from
men who have encouraged brother to
stand in fiery battle against brother, and
son against father, and have wished that
the chasm separating the friends and the
enemies of South might open as wide
and as deep as that between heaven and
hell.
The former divisions in the Presbyte
rian ChuTch we deplore, and we have
seen and felt enough of their sad effects;
but we cannot purchase harmony even
among those with whom we have shared
delightful labors and sacrifices, at the
price of principle. It would not be the
true way to build up the Church'* of
Christ.
We hold and teach the grand old doe
trines of the Confession of Faith, and we
believe that system of truth to be scrip
tural, and the source of life and strength
to the. Church.; The Assembly’s Cate
chism we desire to have imprinted upon
the mind of every child of our Sabbath
schools and congregations.
But sympathy with rebellion against
our Government is no part of our creed,
and we, with our feelings, are with the
loyal portion of our population, who in
tend that this generation, and coming
generations, shall understand that trea
son is a crime, and that it is no trifling
matter to uphold and encourage the men
who have occasioned the death of thou
sands and tens of thousands -of brave
men on the battle-field, in the hospitals,
and in the Southern dungeons and stock
ade prisons. The land is filled with
mourning, and the moan of the widow
and the wail of the orphan are heard on
high. And—we cannot give the right
hand of fellowship to the ministers of
Christ who have wished and prayed- for
the success of the men who have brought
this woe upon the land, and express no
regret for their course.
It is evident to all that much strife
and many divisions prevail. We that
have stood by our nation’s flag, do not
claim that we are faultless in this matter.
This would be to claim to be more than
human. Even in the trying times we
have passed through, we have not ex
hibited as perfectly as we should the
spirit pf our Master. We feel it; we
know it; and we have our part to do in
the great work of reconciliation.
But we doubt whether any one thing
would do more to restore harmony, than
for each follower of Christ, and each
minister who has gone off with the re
bellion, to acknowledge the wrong, and
to seek to repair the great wrong done.
Knoxville, E. Tenn., Aug. 25, 1865.
w?i S i° Y^ M T rei ?™ RS m Missouri.—A
savs -“Th P ' , Loms ’ la * New York daily,
rhe dass more immediately affected
y the new Constitution, and now in great
abou t lts are the seeeSion
ar . e , required to take an oath
tliat they have borne arms, nor aided
nor sympathized with the rebellion. Of
2 e hundreds of them cannot do it without
Sw P mT iry> and , is where the shoe
j?“ oll es. They, would gladly, a majority of
TWk ta w a V at L of alle giance to Jeff.
Bavis, but as they haven t the opportunity,
they must, perforce, commit penury or quit
preaching in Missouri.” f j ui j ui puis
A sher . chaplain of the
8- TJmted States colored troops
died at Wilmington, July 27th, aged 52. he
£Ri£5WSMffSSHafc