sew Series, Vol. V, IsTo. 19.
100 By Mail. $3 SO By Carrier. )
lets Additional after three Months. J
;-nniraii'
THURSDAY, MAY 7,1868««- ~
[IIK CHURCH DONE WITH POLITICS T
\ lave always heldto the doctrine that the
iih as such is bound to exert a positive moral
cue* in the affairs'of the State 1 . When 1
>:said to the Roman goveiidr; “My Kingdom
,t of this world;” he immediately added, “If
iingiiom were of this world’, then would my
mts fight,” &ci, showing thSt by “ world,” he'
it the whole system of material forces upon
h men rely for effecting tetapirfil objects;
e.-, fleets, wealth, position, office,, apd .thej
j lis kingdom, he meant* was; one, depen n
upon moral and spiritual agencies^upon' the:
r of truth, of faithful
: and upright charaotef; in fine, of fhe Holy
; influencing men through t { he attitude,
* and energetic but peacable deeds of, the-,
eh
ring the war, the Ohureh ;of this country 1
up, as it never had® done before, io two
; first: That it'iiad a duty to perform,jjn
f of the high, moral interests .-involved--in
ruggle —freedom, human rights andloyalty
eminent as God’s ordinance ; and second-'
it on account of its neglect of this duty
generation or two past, it was in no, small
re responsible for the mischiefs .and miser
the rebellion. - The foes of freedom'had
'ed to muzzle large parts of th'e Church,
e amazing, humiliating and highly. impic|r
trine was taught by men, who.had the pro
of the Old Testament and i the thirteenth:
v of Romans in their hands;-'that telig:
>1 the Church had nothing,to do with poih
i the broad, comprehensive meaning, of
ivord. Politicians might ; take .whatever
they pleased; the national policy or >tbe
f the Commonwealth might'be shaped for'
r evil as these men chose ; gross ’ wrongs
I be meditated or perpetrated m tte name
: people ; and yet , the. Church could sot
interfere, even in the exercise of those
influences which are her legitimate Scrip
veapons. The necessary effect of such a
ile must be to relieve the consciences of
• . ■ " r y : v k .. / t
cn in politics, and to eiribolden them in
ril courses ; while it tends to produce a dan
popular indifference, and to supply to de
; men that most pliable of all material, a
be without those dear and high moral
ions, which can only be effectually nour
y the decisions of the Church, promulga
ough her pulpit and her press*
lie this pernicious, pestiferous heresy has
literally discarded, and while nearly every
| evangelical Christians exerted itself to
lost to strengthen and reotify public opin
llie moral issues of our struggle, it is to
Id that a relapse into the apathy of for
tes is impending. The question may well
■as the Church of Christ quite exhausted
I'iclential opportunities of contributing to
liort of righteous sentiments and sound
lons in the community Ms there nothing
jnoral phases of affairs demanding her de-
Interposition ? Are not high principles
■rests still at stake, in which the Church
lost potent moral power and as the di
lad of truth in the world, is involved ?
|e gross immorality of disloyalty and re-,
lecds still to be inculcated. If the pub
lienee were os keen upon this wickedness
I whetted by a sense of danger, there
Irhaps be no demand upon the professed
lof morality for any services of this sort.
Ire all aware of the process of demoral-,
Ihich has been going on ever since the
lion of President Lincoln. We know
■only has not a single rebel, as such, been
I; > justice, and that even the proceedings
*!n; arch criminal have almost dwindled
Ire, but that men who rose to the most
lublic positions on account of their sup-
E'lility to rebellion, suddenly changed
Hide, and have directed their whole
wer, and influence to the restoration of
! nt rebels, without conditions and with
to an equal or superior political status
loyal. It is to be hoped that the re
the President by impeachment will
veto the more outrageous demonstra
ympathy with rebellion, and check
is tide of re-actioi in the North. But;
oedful to repeat tie Bible doctrine that
\ is A sin ; i that consequently the
punish a rebellicn so vast, so causeless
?ked, is a sin ; dud the effort to reverse
position of partes, and to inaugurate
'ment and as the dominant
(tional feeling, is if possiblo, a greater
sin than the rebellion itself. And to see clearly
the most strenuous efforts to procure such a rev
olution in opinion, and, as it were, to vitiate the
nation's very life-blood by injecting into it the
foul-and poisonous exhalations, it has east off
with such infinite pains; to be in the midst of
such- efforts, and to try to feel, that as Christian
men, ministers and Churches, we have no respon
sibility for the result, is unpardonable fa'itlile'ss
nessto a palpable and a solemn duty. It is to shrink
Sgriin 1 towards that A'ntinomian pietism, which we
'admit mustresult in abandoning country to
‘the 1 undisturbed control, of ..irreligious men. It
shbhldbe our part religiously to honor loyalty
arid tb, put lasting shame upon rebellion, and
abettors of rebellion, against God’s ordinance,of
government, and especially his'ordinance of free
government; and above all, rebellion in the in
terest: of' slavery. Only an apostate .Church can
approve such a rebellion and its approval must
become a mill-storie, around its own neck.
2. The Church, as a. true representative of the.
Gospel.of Christ, must array itself against the rer
actionary movement which seeks to deprive, man
of his natural. fights, and keep up odious and
unchristian distinctions on account of color.,
have never advocated unpempl suffrage; in, thjs
paper; Norhahour Church taken any such.ground.
But impartiality in suffrage; and: in civil and'
every other mere right, the Church to which we
belong always has demanded arid always ought
to demand. We claim that nothing whatever,
which can be asked as a right, or which it is of the
genius, of our institutions to confer upon citizens,
as such, can b'q withheld' from any man on do
count of his color, without such a glaring infrac-,
tion o£i the simple principles of Christianity, as
Should fouse the indignation and evoke the pro
test of ! every main and of every institution bear
ing that honored name: Tt l is darkening counsel
by .words without knowledge,,to call impartial
suffrage a, mere political question. Indiscrimi
nate suffrage; in our judgment, is an evil; but to
discriminate'. upon- : cplor' 'rind' race,
alone, is not only a still greater evil, but a sip, ri'j
jgrOss and 'ihSQuaistency.of which the i
followers of that Christ, who died fqr all men,
should not fir a moment allow themselves to be
guiltyi Every one of them is; bound to do what
he/can fo svfeep away such unrighteous distinc
tions.' Arid while we rejoice at the vast and
substantial reformation, in this respect, success
fully proceeding in the South; we do not forget
that the fruits of that movement are insecure,
so long as the .North refuses the ballot on the
ground of color, in her own territory. In bring
ing about these just rind high moral aims, the
Church with .her heaven-born philanthropy
should be the foreinost. Our astonishment and
grief may be supposed when we were i n formed that
the defeat of impartial suffrage in Ohio was to be
largely attributed to the opposition of one of the
branches of the Church, not very remotely allied
;o our own
3. Once more, as one endeavoring to conform
to the Eighth commandment of the Decalogue,
the Christian is bound to oppose repudiation in
any and every shape. The first subtle appear
ance of faithlessness to our national obligations
should rouse every honest fibre of his nature.
The schemes to pay our debts in paper, to force
creditors to take less of principal or interest than
we promised, and to so reduce taxation as to im
peril our ability to meet our engagements prompt
ly, are merely proposals of fraud on a gigantic,
scale, with which a healthy conscience cannot
dally for a moment. Even if they are not finally
carried out, their very agitation, under cover-of
distinguished names, must do immense injury in
lowering the tone of commercial morality through
our whole country. Do we wish utter corruption
and rottenness to pervade our business relations?
If not, we must nut tolerate or parley with such
proposals. We must brand them with their true
names. We must scout the idea of tbe nation
fulling in common honesty any more than the
individual or the business firm. We must strip
off the mask and quench the false glare, which,
alas! the very enormity of such offences throws
around them. We verily believe the ministry is
called to preach upon the Eighth commandment
as in danger of infraction upon the grandest
scale known in any Christian country. Don’t
let the Tribune and Jay Cooke beat us in incul
cating present national du’y, and in denouncing
an impending great national sin.
Relig ; ous teaching which does not take hold
of the practical every-day life of inen, and make
it palpably purer in its most public relations is
mere cant. Churches which have no mission, no
acknowledged responsibility upon the burning
moral questions of the age, have no business
here.' They do not belong to the New Jerusa
lem let do>cn of God out of heaven. "The Church
may not be able to accomplish all the exalted
PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, MAY 7,1 1868,:
national objects she would thus aim at; but,let
her fulfil her part towards creating, a right, $.
pure, a noble public-sentiment, leaving the qp&M
tion 1 of success or failure to the Lord. AbdVb
all things; let her beware of the' humiliatingra'd
disastrous fate of being left behind in the . merqh,
of public sentiment; of ;having slowly andilatO:
to toil up:to:the point which;she - herselfshqbld
have first occupied; as the World’s Advance Griafd
in true moral progress and iri genuine civijtri-,
tion. .. .. . . . i wisi:
MARCIIANT’S PORTRAIT OF MR* BARNBfc;
A deeply interesting scene was
the lecture-room of the First Church, after
ture on Wednesday evening of last week, April
29th. E. 1). Marcharit, Esq., the well-ktiowh 1
portrait painter of this city; whose
Mr. Lincoln, Governor Geary and , other distin-.
guished persons, and whose devotion to, and great
success, iji his art, arfe.well known,-is a-membertOf
the First Church and a warm personal, admirer
of Mr. Barnes.; Naturally, enough, the close of
Mr. Barnes’ active.career w;as : seized by his artiqt.:
admirer .as;the proper occasion: for » new po%-,;
trait. And so, having justexecuted the wofkj®
he, handsomely and liberally presents it to th|'
church; After the.lecture, on.the evening named,,
the'congregation organized by calling Ambrosfe
Esq., to the chair, and appointing Mr.GeStf
. secretary. The note of presentation, most g#4®<o
fully and touchingly written by Mr. Marchant,.,
was read, and at a suitable moment in the read-1
ing, the' portrait, which occupied a prominent
position, was unveilell*to the audience. A mo
tion to reeeiy-e the portrait, with the thanks of, the
congregation, and to place ; it in the study, was.,
‘made, arid, enforced in a brief and pertinent ad
dress by S.,C. Perkins, Esq. Mr. P. expressed®
his sense of the. great favor fefaowh ,to'the edrigre-;:
gation by the gift of Mr. Marchant; dwelt on-the,
appropriateness of placing..it where, future pasf
tors would study, and sessions and; trustees .'hold'
their’ meetings and the members
grayer.... H© spoke of Mr. Merchant's--personal"
'regard for Mr. ®arnqs,,and .in ,the most, touching
manner, alluded' to the loss by the artist of his
noble, only, son in the war, and to Mr. Barnes’
tender pastoral ministrations during, that time of
great,affliction. He had no doubt that the,por
trait was painted under the inspiration and re
membrance of those, ministrations. He conclu
ded by moving a reference of Mr. Marchant’s
letter to the session and trustees of the church,
for a suitable reply, and it was so ordered and
the meeting adjourned. The portrait is certainly
an admirable speciriien of the art, and gives more
satisfaction than any that has yet been painted.
There is an intellectual and spiritual beauty; a
sweetness without softness in the expression,
heightening rather than concealing the truthful
ness of the, work, as if the artist had almost
caught the moinent when the man was passing
into the immortal. The hands and other acces
sories are Executed with the greatest care.,
The study has been handsomely renovated, and
the people who so warmly cherish the memory
of the past may be relied upon in the future.
A cordial reception awaits Dr. Johnson, who is
expected to be with them this week.
Messes. Editoes: After the general remarks of
fered in my two former letters, I desire now to say
something touching the hinge questions in relation to
“ Re-union." These questions are the following; 1.
What are the difficulties to be overcome ? 2. How
are these difficulties to be met, in order to a real,
practical union ? 3. Do the terms agreed upon by
the Joint Committee at the late meeting in Philadel
phia so meet the demands of the case as to promise
the desired result ?
Tfie difficulties in the way of “re-union” are
deemed slight and unimportant only by those who
take a very superficial view of the causes that di
vided the Church, and have thus far perpetuated the
separation. The parties in the great conflict were not
children, nor were they men without intelligence or
any profound convictions, actuated by merely person
al ambition or blind passion. Undoubtedly, grave
misapprehensions and personal jealousies entered
largely into the strifes that finally rent our Church
asunder. But tbe deeper'causes were diversities in
respect to doctrine, government., benevolent policy,
and general spirit,—diversities that were developed
more and more through many years until they could
no longer be repressed. The more conservative ele
ments in the Church, including many Presbyterians
of foreign birth and training, constituted, in the main,
the Old School party; and the New School party
was made up chiefly of the freer and more progressive
spirits in the Church, including many good people
from New England. It was natural that two parties
thus constituted should differ just as they did; the
one adhering to the Scotch theology, and insisting
upon a close conformity to the letter of the Confes
sion of Faith and the Catechism; the other claiming
the right to re-adjust some points in the theology of
the fathers, while as Presbyterians still keeping them
selves within the limits of “ the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures—the one construing
,the constitution of the Church so as to make room
as far v as‘ possible for a rigorous exercise of authority;
LETTEBS ON BEUNION. 111.
the oiber cqri tending for a freer ladpiinisira.tjqn under
the influence of “light arid live,’’.ana',less reliance
'up6h" iriachiriery and ‘ the -power of the. Church
•" 'Courts —th'e one urging the importance arid ne-‘
cessity of> keeping the 'theological: tdachihg'.arid • the
.berievolence-of the i Church- under thfei. close: supervi-i
~sion:of the General Assembly; the Other preferriqg
more: independence, and a larger; garticipatipq.pf the,
olent institution®; —trie one dreading and. frowning
■ upon 'agitation 1 ‘ tbribhfri'g the, 'i'bhje^v 1 of JsS4vWy i ‘
'the other bpeiilv takhig ; Sidesi wiffi-tfie c&ris'e’tif'hrit 1 '
I man liberty-. - 'the Church was divided by thesd'an
tagoriifems't;of which those pertaining;to. doctHne and:
government themostjinfluential. in, thq ; minds ;
.of, l the..thinking;qndqarnestm.en who. ultimately con Tt
trolled ties. ..Thq diner epees, in Relation to the
(’policy and slayirv 1 would never’have
’dmded’hs-horth of; Mason 1 arid Snxdn’b'livid, if thief
"had riot sustained inipoftahtTelations 1 to th'e'strdrigtb
entogof- the One:party or'the biher in regard tothe
profoundeEiqiriestioris of: doctrine arid government. ;
• iJfp'Vt time j.and Proyidence have disposed fif the;
issue in I respeci,to slavery, altljough our ,Q; S. breth-.
ren .as a hpay never openly esppgsed the. cause of li
berty in "the later conflicts toachirig this subject,’uri
"tiTtlie rehqiliori w®as actually iri rind'the
‘fafoused spirit’ of loyalty iri the' country forced’ their®
•ASserirhly to’ declare itself for the governmeUt fn the
?spring:of 1861l ; li0n the other-hand experience hris
. conviricedthe • New; School body that, “ co-tmerative:
, beneyojence,:’ in,'the departments of Home Missions
and Edqcatipu is, not, .wise and; expedient, while it re
mains, a question whether the, voluntary principle;
iriight riot be' so grafted upon the ‘eeblesirihtical policy,
tvithiri thnimits of'bur own Ohurfeh;:as to drayr out'
the laity l arid ’add ; firimerisely to' out 1 effleihriSy 1 as'■ a'
denomination., o It alsoremalnsaquestion.ihow far it
. is desirable- ito have-fhei' Theofogijeal Seminaries.-of- the
.Church: under the control of the majority in the .Gen-
so as,to,-provide rfor prily one type of
tlieologicrilVteaching; arid indeed; whether Seminaries,
‘independent of direct ecclesiastical', supervision may.'
riot best'rally the people to their support, and still
be safe enough so long as their professors are Under
■ the control of the Church, and they must have' the:
;confidence bf.the churches.around them,-if they are
to; be, successful. - And whatever be our theorie,® on,
this .subject it, is a fact that some of otu;.,Seminaries;
are by- their charters held subject to the government
of close 1
u! The doctrinal publicatio?is of the Church, riiust in
the end be coriforined, in the ■ main, to the types of
theology that are held and treated as allowable in the
Church ;■-and on this-ppiritthe two must be
practically :at issue, .whatever they may- agree upon
in words,\unlpss they, can first. really come together
.on the general dopti'inal question. . , ...
How then stands' this vital' question ,at ‘pfesent.
betwrieri'fh’e tiVoEch’ools?V I ririswer, asi
gitiatood. before and; at the'time'of the division; so'faf 1
bg the general positiohvof the; parties' is concerned.’
' There were then, as there are now,® various shades of
theological opinion, to be found among those
who adhered to both parties. The great characteris
tic distinction, as to the doctrinal question, at the
time of separation, appeared in two important facts:
(1.) While there were some N. S: irieri in theology on
the Old School side, and many Old School men with
the new Schopl'as to questions of administration, all
the leading men on the. 0. S. side were strongly 0.
S. in theology, and many of the leading men on our
side were distinctively N. S. in theology. And here
let me say that the theological difference, though of
ten exaggerated by Old School men, was one of ideas
as well as words. I' think no discriminating theolo
gian will say that there was no real difference between
Drs. Jnokin, Breckenridge, Wilson, Hodge and even
Alexander, and such men Beecher, Barnes, Duffield
arid' Beriian, touching the - doctrines of Original Sin,
ability rind inability and atonement; or that the Old-
School .leaders differed as widely from one another as
from the distinctive, New School men. The difference,
though as we think, not furidarriental in relation to
the great outlines of the Calvinistic system, was
such as,to.warrant the distinction of “ two types of
theology,”, and it certainly drew lines closely on
questions pertaining to theological Seminaries and
doctrinal publications, and even- the appointment of
Commissioners to the General Assembly.
(2.) Butthegreat, practical difference arose in regard
to the importance of the . doctrinal divisions. Both
parties, then as now, professed to “ receive the Con
fession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures," “in the Reformed
or Calvinistic sense.” But the 0. S. leaders contended
that such men as Beecher, Barnes, Duffield and Be
man, had discarded essential parts of the Cal vinistic
system, and must therefore be either mistaken or in
sincere in their subscription to the Confession. (The
ipsissvma verba theory of subscription was never
generally held by Old School men of the present
generation.) This view of the alleged "errors" and
" heresies " in their relation to the Confession led first
to the claim that Presbyteries have a right to exam
ine ministers bringing regular testimonials frdm co
ordinate Presbyteries, (which claim was expressly
denied by the Flew School majority in the Assembly
of 1834, and as positively affirmed by the 0. S. ma
jority in the Assembly of 1835.) Then efforts were
made to exclude such representative men as Barnes
and Beecher froni the Church, by discipline for here
sy. This drew the lines between the stringent 0. S.
men, and the party; of liberty in the Church, which
embraced many men who were moderately Old School
in their theology; and on the question of exclusion,
some mild men who finally sided with the 0. S.
body voted for the acquittal of our persecuted men.
And as “Old School" (Dr. Cbas. Hodge) frankly
says in a late number of the Presbyterian, “ when
they (the O. S. men) failed in that effort, they in
sisted on the division of the Church.” After the di
vision, those in the 0. S. body who were represented
by !the men who voted for the conviction of Mr.
Barnes in the Assembly of 1836, were an overwhelm-,
ing majority. Of course, then as now, there were
. some N. S. men in the 0. S. body, who wer e tolerated
there on condition that they would hold their tongues
and pens as to their peculiar views, and let the ivhole
stream of the Church’s known teaching, whether in
the pulpit, in the Seminaries or through the press be
distinctively Old School. On the other hand the New
School body after the division freelv conceded to
both\Old and New School men full liberty to hold
their distinctive views and teach • them through
whatever channel they might find most convenient.
While N. S. men could not ordinarily obtain admis
sion into the Presbyteries of the O. S. Church, men
of both types of theology were readily received into
our Presbyteries, and permitted to pass unquestioned
from one Presbytery to another.
Now, it is doubtless true, that within the lapse of
thirty years, some changes have taken place in both
bodies, affecting the numerical strength of distinctive
ly NjS. men, in our Church, and.of exclusive men, in
the 0. S, body. But the avowed position of both bodies
(orenesee Evangelist. ISTo* H.46^,
( Ministers $2.50 H Hiss. $2.60-
l Address:—l334 Chestnut Street-
iq gelation r {9 l( l or liberal construction of“ the sys
tem of doctrine" contained in ttie Confession 5 re
mains unchanged. The 0. S. body attempted to
jilstify'its'divisive measures in 1837 and 1838, by
alleging thiat we were radically unsound in the faith,
or'stood by. and defended men who were thus un
sound. , They still apologize for those measures by
.reiterating, even; in the issues of their Board of Pub
lication,- the. Same charge. And those of them who
.advocate ? reunion .’ are eareful to assure their breth
fp/i 'tliat.teJ&e changed, or at least are willing to
changA bufgrdund' iu' regard to subscription to the
[ Confession ot Faith far enough to satisfy the whole,
or,*i early the whole, of the united Church. Not a
single O. S. paper, however zealpus for “ reunion,"
has, ventured, to say that their Church, is* ready to
ujith, the undWdtahchng that men'holding the
N. theology 'can befrefely r&scived
iht^ffie ; ministry oftlfe Church, or be allowed to
pasß ffom' one Presbytery (into another throughout
the Clmrch. On th.e,contrary, one of their papers,
the-N. ;W.' Presbyterian, openly declares that they
will.conßent to-reunion only qn such terms as will
allow them,/op allihi'ftMure, to reject all applicants
for admisBioh into the ministry of the Church; Who
hold'the views of Barnes, Duffield, &c. ■ Anli from
\no 0. S. quarter do we hear any public expression of
disapproval of this declaration. [On the contrary, f‘old'
School” (Dr. Hodge,) in the Presbyterian, expressly
endorses the exclusiye article, of the N. W, Presby
terian, as “judmirable.’’ ( ' We are toldj also, by “Old
School ” “ at the'recent meeting of the Jeint-
Committee,the Old’School members of'that‘com
mittee, had'a separate’hte&ting, and resolvedPSy ad
ndhanimtius vote] that-they.would not consent to any
■ternfAdf union which,should bind the united Church
■ to the latitude of interpreting tbej Confession which,
the New’School has hitherto allowed." Andfiir
;ther,( he-Bays, that'this resolution was adhered to,
until thej fi,nal i adjouirriDi'eht. Dr. Hodge further af
firms that “the Old School stand publicly commit
' ted " against allowing us the liberty which we have
hitherto enjoyed, which he calls “the latitude of
•interpreting the Confession which we have hitherto
allowed;” “ Our Presbyteries," he says, “cannot
knowingly consent to any such condition." And it
was precisely, to avoid any implied consent to any
.such condition, that tlieO. S. members* of the Joint-
Committee, steadily refused to accept any and every
proposition from our side, that in recogniz
ed the allowance of the' “ various views'" that are
openly .held and taught in our Church, without ec
'Cleslastical-“let or hindrance." At last, as “Old
School ” :well says, neither party'did yield. They
adopted a formula onwhich each could put its own sense,
and departed.” So mu'dh for the supposed change
oh the part of our Old School brethren. ; I t may be
that, a niajbnty of their body has changed, 1 But if
[so, we lack as. yet any tangible evideruteoi such change, l
'just at the point where we need it most. It issaid
;that-they*idd;..n.at ujjdarsjppd! Mr;;Ban»es aina Dr.
'l&Jfiehl,- &6.V and therefore it is 'unfair to quote
their .condemnation of the'views of such men. Well,
if they do not understand the views of men who
have so often, during the last forty years, expound
ed their theology,- it would take those of us who are
younger, forty years more to reach the same point
of continued misunderstanding. How are we evei
to find out what our brethren are willing to allow,
if we cannot give them credit for common sense
enough to understand the main views of men whose
meaning seems as clear to us as anything we our
selves could say?
Of course we, on onr part, claim that our Church
has not changed since the division, as to the points
that create the difficulty in regard to doctrine. We
have very many men still in our Church, who hold
and publicly teach the same doctrinal views that
were so loudly denounced by our Old School breth
ren at the time of the separation. Whether the
number of such men among us now is larger
or smaller, has no important bearing on the present
question. Por we freely receive men into all our
Presbyteries who hold the same opinions that were
avowed by our leading New School men then, and
we claim the right of continuing to do so. Of
course I do not reler to the theology of Oberlin, or
that of Dr. Bushnell, which our Church never has
in any way approved. I refer to the views of the
very men who were arraigned for heresy, and whose
sentiments on the disputed points were well ex
pressed by the protestors in the Assembly of 1837,
as endorsed by the celebrated Auburn Convention
of the same year. Such is our position. We
never believed there was any such doctrinal dif
ference as to justify the division of the Church. We
do not believe there is any such difference now as
to justify continued separation. But we demand
the same liberty for the views of New School men
as for those of Old School men, as a condition of re
union. We demand this for ourselves and ourcbil
dren and pur children’s children. We ask of our
brethren no more and no less than we are willing
and ready to grant to them. It is a part of the lib
erty which we now enjoy that we can pass freely
from one of our Presbyteries to another withoutbe
ing rejected on account of vieWß which we held and
avowed at our licensure and ordination. We ask
not mere toleration where we may happen to be at
the time when the re-union shall be consummated,
but the same freedom of removal from place to place,
which ive now enjoy. In this respect also, we are
ready to grant all that we demand. Such, I believe,
is the position of the two parties as far as it has
been publicly announced, aB it regards tbe allow
ance of differences of 11 interpretation,” or “ doc
trine,” which is really the same thing.
In another letter, I will (D. V.) notice the other
points to which I have referred. Re-TJhion.
Gladstone’s Resolutions os the Irish
Church. —The following are the resolutions
which were adopted by the British House of Com
mons, April 4, by a majority of fifty-six :. 1. That
in the opinion of this House it is necessary that
the Established Church of Ireland should cease
to exist as an establishment; due regard being
bad to all personal interests, and to all individ
ual rights of property. 2. That, subject to the
foregoing considerations, it is expedient to pre
vent the creation of new personal interests by
the exercise of any public patronage, and to con
fine the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commis
sioners of Ireland to objects of immediate neces
sity or involving individual rights, pending the
final decision of Parliament. 3. That an hum
ble address be presented to her Majesty, humbly
to pray that, with a view to the purposes afore
said her Majesty would be graciously pleased to
place at the disposal o,f Parliament her interest
in the temporalities of the archbishoprics, bish
oprics, and other ecclesiastical dignities, and
benefices in Ireland, and in custody thereof.