©utrtspetfiwTO. CORRESPONDENCE WITH REV. DR. GUR LEY. Soon after the late meeting of the Joint Com mittee on Reunion, it became evident that the terms of their new doctrinal basis would and might be cojutrued by the rigid minds of the other branch as anowing only the narrow range of in terpretation which conformed to their views of the Reformed sense. It was argued ttiat no endorse ment or protection was given in the basis to the doctrinal views actually prevailing and recognized as sound in the separate Churches. While va rious views, not inconsistent with the Reformed sense, were to be freely allowed in the united Qhqrch, as they had been in the separate Church es, there was nothing in the language of the basis inconsistent with the supposition that va rious views, incompatible with the Reformed sense, Were also allowed in the separate Churches, nothing which precluded the united Church from revise ing the judgment of the separate Churches as to consistency of any of.the views allowed by them with the Reformed sense of the Confession. If Vais, therefore, a mere question of accidental majorities in the united Church, whether this of that type.of doctrine recognized as orthodox in the separate..Qhurches, would be freely allowed ia the united Church, , , in view of this,uncertainty, the Editor of this 'jttfper 'addressed a note of inquiry to Dr. ‘Gurley, Chairman of the Committee of the oilier branch', not* with a view to newspaper publicity, but 1 for Ips own satisfaction and guidance.- Rut ,as : the respected Chairman himself volunteered permis sion to use the correspondence as 5 1 saw fit, 1 have ’fehcluded to give it to the feadc'rs'of my pa per; The first letter which 1 I addressed toDr. Gurfey was not his answer was inot forthcoming, a second was despatched, of which a copy was kept, as follows : . Philadelphia, April 11,1868, Rev. Da. Gurley—Dear Brother— As the true significance of the doctrinal .article of the Joint Committee’s New Plan has been hotly eon fes&d/and in -some Quarters assumed'to be en tirely consistent with rigid anti-union principles of, construction, I wrote to you a few days; ago, for my personal satisfaction, and not-with,any view to publication, to get your own understafid i.tig iff the article; particularly ‘that part of it ‘which rumor 1 assigns to yourself. Allow me to •zbpeat, substantially,’ my suggestion,: viz nWheth- ; er byjhe clause, “ Various methods of viewing, &c., which do not impair the integrity,of, the Re fijrmed or Calviplstic system, are to be freely al-' ’’loVed in the united Church, as they have been in> the separate Churches,” you intended to say that the various methods of viewing, ,&c., now allowed in the separate Churchps, shall; he freely allowed in the united Church, as not impairing the' Calvinistic system ? Or whether, some: ’have contended, you meant that the majority in - the united body should> have power to select bucli of these various methods, as m,,their judgment, did not impair the jiifegrity.of the system, and to brand ail the others as heretical ? ~It seems to me that th f e ! language Of y6dr amendment, or proviso, would l bear this latter construction, <and; it is,impossible to. deny that a party might arise in the future, determined on limiting,its signifi cance exclusively to this meaning ; in fact, the , elements of such a party are too manifest already; to leave room for doubt as to the use they Would make of any unfortunate ambiguity in the doc trinal platform. I venture ;to ask these questions in the interest of a right Reunion and for my own personal satisfaction—not at all for publica tion. • ' 1 l '' "' ' v With greet respect and' Christian regard', > , i .John W. Mearb. This letter Had scarcely been dispatched when 'a reply'to'my first was received as follows: i Richmond, Ya., April 11,1868. Rev. Dr. Mears—Dear Brother: Your letter of the Ist inst., was forwarded tome in this city, where, in feeble health, I am spending a few weeks with my daughter. With regard "to, the subject about which you make ' inquiry, owing to limited strength and a trembling hand, I must write briefly. My .understanding is, that the Joint Commit tee, in the terms which they have recently adopt ed, propose that the two great branches of the Presbyterian Church in country uhiip on the doctrinal basis of the CalVinistic system, 1 asthat •system is presented in the Confession of Faith, •and, as, it has-been ■ understood and; received < by the Reformed Churches. This;, system is charac terized by certain leading and well-known doc trines which distinguish it. from Armiriianism and Pelagianism on the one hand, and from An tinonriiihism and Fatalism on the other. It lies .high and fair between these extremes,-add in. its characteristic and .fundamental teachings is op. posed to them both. That system is presumed to he held in good faith' by both branches of the 'Church, r and‘ because it is so held, the way seems blear for our becoming organically one. But while we; hold the>-same system { and teach the samp,doctrines —the doctrines of the Confession —we , are fully a,ware that different ministers, who have’heep leading men' among us, and different, 'teachers and ‘schools’of theology present and 1 ex-, •jflaini state, illustrate, and defend these doctrines! idifferentlyjtheirtqrms, differ; their methodsof t j>rejeiutaiipn and, defence differ; their views as to 'subordinate points not affecting the integrity ! of the Reformed or Calvinistic system differ'; 'their philosophies differ : and in the first term of Reunion we propose to. let them differ. In all Hheseninatters w$ propose to allow the, same lib { that has hitherto been allowed, only requir ing that, religious teachers in the United Church: shall riOT*l)e perihitted So to ignore dr deny’ahy: doctrine of the Gonfessiea-as- thereby to impair .thp integrity of .the system, of doctrine w,hich .that Confession., so clearly and aidy unfolds. tPqat mores could we properly yield on the be half if liberty t What less could we properly require on the behalf of orthodoxy ? ' And now, to present my owu views and-,feet ings still more definitely and plainly, I will add, that I have recently read, for the first time, Mr. Barnes' Book ou justification. I have read it THE AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN, THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1868. carefully and with reference to the question of Reunion. It is not, to my mind, a full, clear, and adequate discussion of that subject; it seems to me to fall somewhat short of the plain and ex act teachiriMjftfijinspiration and of our Stand ards touchihgthe question, “How shall a man be just with Godthere are expressions here and there the correctness of which I could not endorse; and there is an avoidance in the entire discussion 'of the terms found in the Confession and Catechisms, and usually employed by Cal- • vinistic theologians, in treating of that, “ arty culm stnntis vel cadentis ecclesise ,” 1 say the least of it-seems quite remarkable; an,d.-yet, in closing the book and calmly reviewing its en tire tone and teachings, I can not'but fdel and believe, that, after all,- Mr. Barnes holds sub stantially the same doctrine touching themethod of a sinner’s pardon and justification thpt I hold; that he stands, for anything that appears in this treatise, fairly within the pale of the CaßiUistic system; and I see no reason*why, if we w'ere’in the same United Chufch, we might not walk to gether and labor together ,in 'harmony and lpye. This is the. spirit which I expect to carry into the united Church, if the union is consummated as I hope and piay it may be, and this; same spirit I nrtnly'believe will do carried there -by more; fair more, than a majority of myQld School brethren. What weneed is confidencein each gt(i?r, and tjtis. is a,, quality Tyhiqh.j no, terms.of union can create. It must come from a higher source—even from’ Bim ll whp ;i “A fiewic()ila mandment I give unto -you, that ye love one other.” H Yoursftouly ansd fratemally;,- ,r, ~ CouJd;,we be assurejl that the noble, compre hensive, .elevated, spirit of this jotter would ,per : vade and.control the other'branch’ of'the Pres byterian Church, the whole‘ pVbblem" wbitld be solved, ' ’ Still, it' Wfis Aot the personal' feelingpof Dr. Gurley that the writer was tea.rn, glad though jl wastofind tliemspgenialandso catholip. It was as to the measure of the guar antee which the framer' understood';'Lis. amend ment to ccntoinfegainst thie ihikcHief wbich'fioU- ScientioUS men of an opposite spirit to his own might wish to perpetrate iu the united Church. And,so I addressed ( liun;,a second- lettpr;,thank ing him for the first, but in a few words .pressing the inquiry'as to the ulti mate authority Upon 'opinions’now regarded as orthodox in the sepa rate Churches. Whether the judgment lofi.the separate Churches should stand. as final,, or whe ther it was liable to he reopened ..by the united Churcli. The, reader will notice the" limiting clause in the c'dhcluding'part oI 3 tfe'fe&nd par agraph of Dri Gurley’s 1 '■ letter: •“ -In: Uli these matters,’’ sayh thfi Chairman, I 'we projibse to allow the same liberty that has hitherto 1 been,' al lowed, only requiring that religious teachers in the united Churcli ’ be permitted so to ’ignore. .or/.de’ny'iUnypdoetrine of the ;Qgofess_ion as thereby to impair the integrity of the ■ systpm of doctrine, which Cpnfession so clearly and ably unfolds.” It will be seen ffomthis that my further inquiry was justified: To my note, of which no dopy has beenu pre served, the -following reply, was received: 29 Pierrepontst., Brooklyn,N..T-.’ Vi * ' " ' April 27tb, f ' Rev. Dr. Mears—Dear Brother : Serious, illness has delayed my reply to your last. What I wrote in my former' letter comprehends-all I have to say touching the meaning of the' pro posed Doctrinal Basis. 1 '” ‘ The’Basisis Calvinistic, graJtiqg ill the’ lib- 1 erty of Interpretation that the great family.-pf Calvinistie Churches: has ever-; desired, and. its unanimous adoption by the joint Committee seems tome-to be proof*Conclusive that;-in their; estimation;' after careful conference anj enqairy, no'sheh'Serions departures from *th4 Cdvinistfc! system have prevailed in*either of Cur Churches, !as !: would‘ be likely' to be called'inqnestibn- by the ‘United Church, to the disturbance 'of iter peace: —especially if the ‘same spirit'o'f fraternal' confi dence and love, and the'same disposition to make a united assault upon the common enemy-should con'tin'iie’wh'idW is'how prompting-and urging the reunion movement. That movement, consum mated, on the terms proposed, there will ,be no; 'disposition to search 'for heresy in the united body, but,an earnest desire to join hands and efforts, and go up promptly and unitedly, a? one army of the'living God, to the help of the Lord, even, to the help of the Lord'agaibst the mighty. I dictate this from a bed of sickness, in great physical weakness,' but with a heartistill,devoted tq ; the cause of reunion, which. I believe 'tobe ’ the cause of the Redeemer, .intimately connected with-the advancement of His glpry intlnsahd in other lands. 1 ! ' , Although what I have written in this and my previous letter Was. intended simply for yourself, I have no objection to your making any use of it yvhich you think will subserve .the f cause ye have ah’heart. 'Yours fraternally, " 1 ‘ .. F. D. Gurbey . . ‘ ‘ 'Per 'Mrs. .P. D, GußtjßY, , * It did not seem advisable to continue, the cor respondence intithe feeble state of: Dr*. Gurley’s health and at this point the matter was dropped. [ From thej Presbyterian.] ' J PRESENT ASPECT OF THE RE-UNION QUESTION. [Understood to be from the pen of Dr. Chas/Hodge.] i Messrs. Editors. —The precise point, .to be adjastedj SO fdr as the dgbtrinal basis ik concerned, wy are the ‘doctrines for which; : Mr.‘Barnes; Dr. Lyman 'Beecher,‘ahd Dr. Duffield'Were arraigned: By 'the' Old 'School, lo'be'regarded in'tlle' Ghurcfi, when -united, as consistent; yiththb integrity of the system of doctrine'taught; in the Westminster Confession? ' '- i! On this question the Old School'hire'‘pledged and. committed.jto the negative. This is .plain—, 1. 'Because they have from the first .protested agiuriist 'those doctrines. ' They, strehhously 1 en deavored to have them- ecclesiastically conHemhed. Whenothey failed ih ! that effort, they insisted on the division of the .church. In.all this theyicon fessed to be acting under a strong .conviction of duty. For them now to turn round and say that these doctrines are harmless, and con sistent with the system of doctrine contained in our standards; would'be* tbcbnfess themselves insincere,.- ...... , L ,,; , h;ri „,; .... 2. When it was objected against the terms of re-union, presented last year to the Assembly, that they provided for the adoption of the Con fession, as it had been hitherto received by the two churches, and thereby sanctioned the latitude of interpretation claimed fiy the New School, Dr. Beatty, Chairman of the Joint Committee, ear nestly .repudiated this interpretation. He in sisted that it was not the intention of the fra mers of that article -to sanction any such prin ciple. 3. More than three-fourths of the Presbyteries taking action on the subject, rejected the terms of re-union thgn proposed.: The avowed ground, of- their Opposition Was , thok e-* term! seemed.' to I adopting the Confession, which the New School had been aecustotndd ttt allowi ‘ To this principle our Presbyteries declared themselves conscien tiously opposed j 1. A.t a recent meeting of the Joint Committee, the OH School members of that committee fed a separate ifieeting, fiild ! ifesiJlVhd, by’ari uwanimbiis vote) 'that they 1 COUld not consent to any terms-of union which should bind the United Church :to the latitude of interpreting the Confession-which the New School has hitherto allowed. W|e do not give the resolution' verbatim,; but siicn was 9S ! ifftfent' and*- meaning." ! : ’TBb ’ u/embers, 1 per sonally, doubt opposed! to any suoh' lati tude ;of constructjsn £ sapdltfejfe .they ipight. as ifell into, the sea, with a milrstone about its neclc, as to go befofe tile ohurbli'es ■vri'A" aily such propot sifiioni. .m-.u-wnToq therefore,is apbinttOtwhioh.theGld,School stanji -publicly, compiifetcd, *gregby^ys and tq, cajole, them into suph 1 assent, under any ambigUity ‘of l phfae‘e,fe what no man dan justify oir apjn-OvBi"'! i’lL: '-A-A lew-JOi- ibiiiii 1 ) Qn the other hand; itris no less plaia.tliat. the erty which thpy feye’ t ßjways. ‘and ex ercised’. ' Tfey insist that the doctrines "of ‘Mr’, tewrn#, Df/BeefertaWd Df.bfiffi^a ! /fe‘ohlfi s bfe regarded Os ertfiodoxv aUd’entitjed-: fe fulUreCOgi nitiou <iu the United, Gjiiifcch) aSieqna@tentd»i3i fh.?; hf,^ ; That this , is the‘ground on which the New School Body stands, is plaini * i l -. ‘Recause'“lt 'is tfegroUnd oa |W». School meu defisffde’S'thelgetitlemeniabovffinamed, shielded i th#r * opiuioiug:; • mm mit, men to the ministry openly professing those, doctrines. They have always ‘claimed ; 'tfet' T tfe doctrines in questSbn Wre eohaistotit with 'the tegraty Of the Calvinisttei system. /Ehat was,sand; is; tljp precise ,of id ; iffeygi),ce>[})ietyieq!i; J tlie 2. inere is tne negative .argument, that .not a single' ‘leading? j4presen{ati've" man 1 iu 1 1fie n New School l Chufch I ,’.jian'd, indeed,‘So far as we know, uolmanj at or, npf,) has come 1 brethren ,hajl! eOrne oyer tq tfeGld ,Schooi ground, and cp’nsehl ‘in question sKoiild he i exelhded’ ‘froin'tjWa-* uifithd.Uliurch'. At the time j of the Philademhia: Convention; many supposed that the, New Sehppl .had conceded that joint; • and had, the doctrines of. the ~Cp,a ; l fessiqn comment, in thaforiii in which they are : thfeein | presented: ' Bui ”it , yras l! sobn discovered ' that this was a mistake, no such concession was 1 in tended. ;. - ... .. _ r ! P.,1). GuaLEV. ,3., All .arg, on, the other, Bide.'. Every New School man wlio has written or spoken | on ■ the subject j ; has avowed]’directly' or impliedly, * •that; the' New Behoof -baye' not'bhaiiged, : and‘'doj not mean (tomhange. iThe latitude; of belief-kthei libpr.tyjqf fhoughj—jthe,: frepdom ,in interpreting' the standards, yrhich thejr have, hitherto enjoyed,! they insist, must "be’conceded to them in the fn-j ture. This is tholr uttimatum. The Rev. Dr. Spear, of Brooklyn, New York, in a communica-j tion doing him the-h-ighestehonor for candor and fairness, admits the diversity in doctrine between! the. -two insists * that thiei odlyi possible! groundof amagreement-tbat,,both theo- ; logieSj the NeWjjShouJd beJolerated as' equally consistent 1 with' our J standards. This i is honest and intelligible:' This is'the only-fair;; and, indeed'.taA/.wilb be found, ,the only possible; ground of; aujoi^; ( -. The Auiericqti Presbyterian, • of; Philadelphia, openly and, defiantly takes this ground, , It insults Old School men 1 , and defames* 'their’ dbe'trinhs Ik ter Sis wh*ich‘ feW skeptics woii - d Venture to-uke. ‘Th'Aeditbr of that paper sayS •that ithe w-hole! spiritaud design ofrth’e; union) .movement is to, sweep away, exclusivism, ; ,I'he. Fourth Pressbytery of ‘ Philadelphia adopted. ,t .he j fd'llbWing niinnte : , " 1 ■ ■ ' ' - ‘ v *‘ ! 1 i; jKeJ olo'ed, That thisKfesbyt'ery fegafd'-the ‘pfiftj of Re-union, betWeen' the ‘tVo^binhehes'df' thej iPresby terian jChurch, reported, by. Ppm- j jinittee o? the (general as,Jin the; main, judicious and I 'acceptable;. but.j'P'resliyiery! 'deem ; it indispensable to' the' organic unity find ! continued peace ‘Of the; twobranehcsvtb'atthe; acceptanpe qfjthe Confession tailing, the system^,qf, c[octtiqe . taught ,iq.",|yiej be clearly and defiitiitely under-' stood as alioWibg that diversity of iocirmal inter-; 'pretatioh; Wlrtbh/ffom thk'fiSt’, ’h’ab 'obtained 'm| 'the Reformed .Churches, 'and which is not incon sistent with ;the integrity,.of tbe Calvinistic sys-j This resolukon Was obviously signed to' cot'er ‘‘ that diversity of' dbetrinai J iii-j terpretatiOn ’’ which has -from the' 'first,-prevailed, in the New Sehool Churohii ":Thatisueh(di\ferdky* is,‘| consistent w ( ith the-integrity,of s tbe Galyinjstic] System,” is what they, have'eyer maintained. Allf t!iey’hsives‘ei>er 5 ‘ei>er askea' bdfo¥e the* Aisrkptio'nj' or; after it] is allowed the Wystem'-as; they understand if: >The ,Eresbyterytqfc ECibgaj specified .Jjhg.djocti'ineSi of.. Mt,, Barues,; Drs. flCqj lor and. Park,. as those , which, yye .Old.. Sjohpgl men uidst' regard as orthodox'. The Rev. Dr. ‘Hatfield,’ inkms letter to'the Presbyter ', nhdertelchs •toprove thkfe the doctrines ’of Dr. Duffield' ‘tfrei consistent.vfith ohr ;Cdnfession-.>z <Dr:j:Henry;B.j Smith, ja the. ,Jag,qary; number,, of ■ihei-A'rn&rtpy.p Presbyteriafi Review,, does, fhe same, thing. Hel ridicules'the attempt o| ; a. J writer ‘in. ths •Revie id tb show the'contrary. Dr! iSitfieid; In a* later! communication to 1 the* Presbyter, says ■'that the PrinfseKo/i. •isirittisfakeai. *in,i assuming' that the New stands now, he maintains, just where it has al ways stood, ail'd claims the'same latitude, neitheg more nor less, in interpreting the standards which, it has ajways claimed,* iiAiWtitSf ih/the.ihiOfiTH-i Western Presbyterian, who signs himself “ Candor,” known to be one of the most promi i nen£ of ,oar New School brethren in that part of | tb&jcountrjr, asks the editor whether a union ‘‘ based on the system taught in the Confession of Faith asfoistoricillj interpreted by the Reformed Churches, would leave the New School men the same liberty in the interpretation of our sta®d§Eij@- which they now enjoy? This,” he adds, ‘‘is with many the vital point in all this matter. Thousands will never consent to a union which abridges, in the least, the freedom of interpreta tion which has ever characterized our branch of the Church.!’ .-To this plain and honest question, stud NortJ IRTesStern Presbyterian replied in juuadndi^le^itfti<do v F^bi3fflj|^224f-^BgB |t .iS..tl te effect that this was the precise thing which three foilrths of our Presbyteries, acting on the-subject, declared they could not do; 'and, moreoVer, thab this was thecjaim which Old School men junjer-, stood their Nejv School brethren in the Philadel-. pbia Convention explicitly to renounce. T 6 ttiiif, (Febritefy 29,3 “'Gafnddr” replies) “'New School havdihad, I thinks very littlechoice between the basis of the Joint Committee and that of; the Philadelphia. Convention, for the simple reason that they regard both as affording them the same freedom of interpretation as they noW enjoy witb-' in their'ow-nfoounds. Nor 1 is : itbelieved that Drs. Smith or Fisher- intended; by thfeir rfemarks at Philadelphiat, ito. convey any .other impression, they „eommjtting our boayfoo ,any,.more exclusive explanation of the ponfesSioh df Faith tbaii unquestionably' ob tains'at this ddjr; as it ev&rhaS® olMtinediriiour bod|y, and;-,aslwebetieve, in theißefor med* Gfonmh concealment. , The only, Result of) a union which could not Pave epncedeii'tbis liberty tio J eacli sicfe cddi'd a ” This'is Kbndst and r ‘ mat Aihother decisive ■evidence’ onj this subject is thejaotion ,of -the,New -School members of s thp JWhen, met last ihPhilaaelpjiia,' ‘.the Rev.’ Dr. Pattfefsbn of Ghited|'d £ l£oBk“£hfe T?haP a ? lhfgd part of J tlie NeW Sfcbool ffiinisters h’eld thedbctrines of wtiiehwMr. Barnet' might- betConSidardiLthe.repra. Sentatiye,. .That, ,thpse I ,doctriQ ( es i -must' be re? cglyed in ths United Church as of unquestioned orthodoxy. His New ; )l§6hol>l !, bretliren" oh the Committee, ‘wfiile ;r h‘im 'ah W -tlfo extent in which Mr. Barnes was a fair represent? atlvdofcNegfeSctawil -tiNfitegifc ..fldt, tn;:»ny WBi£*%- a9i?Sf fiftmwitteeO dissent from .the claim that the doctrines which VS Thu- .neiiiilo ViSJ l-> >■ ->,s - he v/.as supposed to represent were entitled to re- witif*out- i 'systetai of ddtf trine.- -This: claim "was-'insisted -upon. Here, then,!wa« a-dead-10.6k. , The Qld'Sehool Commit tee unanimous in:fo^claring;that certains forms of doctrine ( could not be the New, School Committee unanimous' in declaring that t-biy must be admitted. Neither partjr cbiildi yidldi Neither •party did' yield; They adopted a formula on: Jwhie-h, each could -; put *, its- - : offa .sense,, -and de? ,_Now ? thig requires nothing of tfoe New School. all 'they cfeinfed in' 18371 * They stand dh the‘ Very'ground- on'-whieh they have'-stood from the begirinihg. - The Old School yield: every -thing. They, give, up the principle which,, for thirty-yew's, they, contended for as essential" to the purity of the ohurch. It is true both parties agree to receive the Con fessioh 6'f Faith'as coh taining the system of doctrine taught in the sa cred- Scriptures. ’This is all the Old School, de sire,, jor haye the right to demand. . But the New School say, they mean by “ the system of doctrine*' taught in the Westminster Confession,” something which'includes the doctrines in'dispute. Nor dois it help the matferito-say the - Confession must iKe-received-in Sts Oalvinistic sense ;t!pr,-,th.at' no: explanation inconsistent,'yith of the i ,Calyinistic„syst^n t is, to be allowed, All these : formulas meagjjrqcisjely tlie same thing. , They; ‘aieiall perfectly and equally satisfactory, if under stood as the Old School understand them. They are, equally .worthless, if understoodas the New School say, they-understand them. ,; : The course taken by representative New School men since the Philadelphia, Convention, renders iipe'rfestly plairi that the ‘twobranches of'the; Ohutoh are as much oppoSed-in doctrine, animus,! •and character now, as they were in 1838; and .therefore - that re-union,-under these circumstan ces, would be mortally wrong, and seriously disastrous. ' True spiritual unity, such as Christ pteiyeu for, abd such as His ‘Spirit produces, would -be sacrificed for a mere form; if the - two, .bodies-were now to be foreed tpgether. ‘ >: r.-'-'M iEEOMOTIE TIAVELLIII& ,OQ_EEESP.OHDEIIT .IN THE WEST. New Castle, Pa. ; f i I)ear Editor: —Gfl? gf>.my : firrt betters -was; ,ffpm place? illustrious as., the diocese of that : champion of unity and .chajity, Key. ,D, C,: Jun-5 .kjpyilJ.l);., and now my last epistle is to be-from jthe.^ameplace, . Pittsburgh, as I came through it, looked a little murkier .in-the wintry, jjeather than it did in the! j lljiMifirqbgbjy toff sjjehp day that Parton visited it, and found it possible; "tb rea^Tby-Saylight 1 in a-weil-lightedybom for one' half houi u each 'day But we must not give' credit toisuob 'bounCers'as that of the Western editor wbo-asseypratfess thatdis.ho.nest; candy-dealers catch the air, here, roll it? ipto sticks and' sell it fpr licorice. . ... , , church looks grand sihc.e 1 the' scaf 'fdrdfngfhas been ‘ fehabvCd and will't e’ unijuestion-; ablytthe<flH£si chhrhhcdificeiim 4hfe ncityt ®he ;EißStt.(io dsiats buiu.tbat , I called on. the pastor piect. Mr. Noble, 1 whom I, met wliile in St.; Paul, arid fduhil that the great 1 between! "thfe climate -Sftiik i wliich‘ i and i, tjh'at to which heha'di come, hhdmofrprbduced.any-'disagreeable :effectsJ -I;fcuo]l/itpo,.that.tlie hrethr,en pf .other denomi- ; JJRt yritb’ him, and all spoke of hip", with, the, most' cordial' kind ness." 'As 'the people ‘arCthC main thiiig i’n mak ihg d'pleasant residence;-Pittsburgh ’must-be a very .pleasant residence in spite of its smoke. But jseeni a yery utilitarian set IfA ,t° flWy*# £°Z 1 1 weypial,(considerations .than any higher ones. " ' ,;i ‘ln Newipdstle I find :that Mr. Wylie’s coh -gfega&om ahfe,ns’active And seeih to be •g&wrtigldnirtrambagrß sdnd' ibrotb'erlyi cordiality. When I was last here it was still possible to dis tinguish between ex-Covenanters and New School Presbyterians, but all the edges of collision ( 0 r rather of distinction for collision there was none ) seem to have worn off both parties. The congre gations seemed to be larger than in the Full, and all the omens'for the future brighter. A Young Men’s Christian Association had been started with great unanimity and cordiality by the various denominations and is meeting with very great success. The opening meeting was .characterized by two features: (1.) Rev. Dr. Junkin gave any crazy fanatical Radicals (likeyourself, Mr* Editor,) a . chan oe to exercise the grace, of patience by some very irenic remarks in regard to the sins of the North be fore, during and since “ the late onpleasantness,” | and on the excellencies pf the patriarchal ,insti tution. The appropriateness of what he saitl was actually not seen by some’ obtuse individuals, but that is their business. As the Doctor had a son in the Northern army such a tribute to “ the lost cause ’ might have been justly expected from him. Col. Daniel H. Wallace (U. P.,) being ?PP 0 j n Association on a Committee whipii was to be of “ Church members in good -•tending, Wi, de<?lared'hirhself ineligible, as he was then ’" under discipline for hymn-singing,” an announcement 'Which made nculittle sensation. As other refusal to serva" a'o. P. diier jumped up and hoi^d f> tSSi ( ffieM , fiaff t i!ie¥ lfi ehbligli'savcl'bn this Sttbje«d.” #l sS «‘ *- - 1 made -some -reference to <Mri>Wallace’s case inmy letter-tffr f prosecution was began at the instance of Rev. Robert Audlcy Browne, D.D., now President of Westminster @blle|>di ; Dri 'Brotrai , e4s ,i liimse'lf‘'g'ailfydf theof fen'ce;oharged ttgMnBt .@blt Wallace, having on one p@tasion :; Qilled;Oilr%{)olitical: .meeting to close its pEoeyeßngsby. singing-the LongMetre.Doxology, (he called it the “Long Metre Benediction;”) and having at u a J r lafef'date'’tihited with Col. BWwh^si’fihildi'eii'-in Bingfn J g : hymns' bn - Sabbath afternoon, thereby,f | :a l B :6ol>: WalMe* puts it, Violating either the S,q.opnd?pr. the. Fourth Com 0r e., as detetand these.) But, as!, your "correspondent kadws by expei-ieWce, sbnie men may'stekl a'sheep with - abStbelr ttatin’ would be hangedifor lookingMoyeri Hhe ffence, so the Rev. JDoctor had jGol, Wallpee “[suspended from the privileges, of untili-trial” for this bffen'ce,-and uujer suspension he has re mainfed mean time; Dr. Brown has resigned-th'e-Nfew Castle pastorate. Several attempts--have beemmade to induce the .accused to quietly .‘“step out of the back door” and avoid a trial, but these Mr. Wallacp will not accede to. Ifc is concede'd ori all sides, tliat he lias been the inost'active’and ’zbalOuS member of the U. P. Church here; i dnd--ptOm'inent in every good work. He 'is the Superintendent- of. a. Mission. Sabbath- -its main supporter. In this it was that- thp offence, was perpetrated, though Col. Wallace always opened and closed the school with selections from Rouse's Psalms. Should he be expelled,foe will be 1 a valuable accession to any Chureh-that he may-unite with. - - Since, the writer was in New Castle, the case came 1 up for trial, as it could, in decency be post- Voned no longer.- " Its points gathered from the following:' 1 ' ? * - - Xibel'preferred against Daniel H. Wallace by "Order of the Session of die United <Presbyterian Church, New Castle, Pa. . ~ . , - Whereas vows are to be sacredlv kept, and their violation is contrary to the Word of God and the profession of- the lTnited Presbyterian Church: ■Yet,, true,it is, ; that yo.u,;Daniel, H. Wallace, a United Presbyterian Church, have Vidlhted; yo’ur Vows as i member'thereof, in that vou-have broken the- -18th ttfticle of the Testimony of said, Church in the Mission of East New Castle as Superindendent thereof, at var ious times during the winter of 1866 and 1867, in that' you .Used therein a-system of-psalmody differ ent from that 'specially, appointed by Gpd ,for his praise, and exclusively, allowed by ( this Ghurch; in this violation, notwithstanding the eounsels-'of your pastor and the brethren of this Session; you have persisted, and publicly defended : this your act. And, whereas God'has appointed the formal ordi nance of Singing His oWn- prdise; in RiS -stated wor ship, and has, by His-Hply Spirit, provided-,in the sacre,d Scriptures, and by His! authority 1 has ap pointed the Psalms for this’purpose; and ahy ap pointment by men of anything other than .these for said purpose is a breach of, the Second Command ment, both in its requirements and prohibitions, and aninterference with the-D'ivirieprefOgative’to ordain Divine Worship.aB held by-fois Church and declared in the.aforesaid article: ' , ; Yet, true it is, that yOU, Bahrel H. ! Wallace, have violated this principle in and instance above specified. . fj ~s , And whereas, to be a leader of division and de fection in the Church‘afid : teAch ■ find’encourage Pthere, and especially young Christians, to violate their vows and resist authority appointed by Christ in His Church, and by them acknowledged, is in violation of the W l ord ; of Gbd, and theMfocfrine of this Church: ; ... . . j , , Yet, true it is, that you,,Daniel H. Wallace, did thus encourage amcifiber of this'congregation to violate the altoresaid article,’ saying: “ Should she sing hymns you would stand by,her,” or words to this effect, " .' . - y - Old School. 1° so far as vou, said Daniel H; Wallace, did, at the (Minion iin East NemGastle, in the spring, of 1867,0 r thereabouts,, violate and en equrage-others to violate the said l«th article of the Testimony df this Driited Presbyterian Church, be- Wg.found; releyaint,: ftnd proygd,against yon, you ought to be proceded against by the censures of the Lord’s Hous'd according to tKe'nathre'bf your offence and scandal. n_ £ > JilliiijfiN; Aiken, Clerk. Done at New Castle, Pebr,uarjr, ( lst; A. D. 1868. . The second not proven, at all, for. the person whom led into the horrible crime of hymn-singing, by reaching her part (it she*sat'beside'filni, was" not then a church'th'eiliber, but the fmdhSgis:’ Whereas the'jjharges and specifications of the , libel against Daniel ‘ If. Wallace' ■ have' • been found •relevant?^nc| .proven, therefore. Resolved, That he be hereby suspended from the communion of the Church' ih'sealing'ordinances. ■ • By order of the Session. ■■•<■■■ ..l, ' ■ -• , , W.JjT. Aikbx. Clerk. Jfeitf Castle, ’MI. 14th; 1868; ;' ” v ' ' Such is the'Second' Commandment as under 's toodin New €aBtlci ' i),: We giye yojxi,these speeifications and this find ing verjbatimifiofn official- documents, being slights jy atixious for their appearanpe.in your columns, ’as the pressure brought to, ppon the local papers by thChe 1 who 1 feared tltfe rebound of the persecution npira the U. P, cause,' was sufficient to prevent the publication of the documents in any local paper. Yours, &c., On the Wing.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers