extent, and then make their past testimony an excuse for present silence, is simply by that silence to consent to the

wrong.

NUMBERS AGAINST PRINCIPLE.

In an article in the New York Evangelist these sentiments

occur:

"There is sometimes, it is true, an earthquake power in a simple solemn separation from a corrupt body. Luther's heaven-adjuring protest dealt a blow at Rome from which she never will recover. The Free Church of Scotland was a sublime movement, not only justifiable, but of greater moral power than the thunderings of a hundred Chalmerses in the established pulpits could have exerted. But the impressiveness of such separations lies in their being right and unavoidable. They become pitiful and weak when they awaken no echo in the public sense of right. The scores of ruptures that have filled Scotland with petty sects, though made with great earnestness and under solemn forms, have exerted no moral power, because they had no grand justifying reason. before God and men. When secession becomes the sole remaining resort, and the moral power which finds no way of exercise, gathers itself into a last act of solemn adjuration, then reason and truth find an echo in the conscience of mankind."

We were aware that many men were in the habit of judging of the right or wrong of principles by the numbers that embraced them. That a majority in any case adopt a doctrine is, with very many, an all-sufficient proof of its truth. But that this rule of judgment should be formally set forth by a religious paper claiming sympathy with the reformatory spirit of the age, we did not expect. The truth has, in all times, been rejected by the majority. The friends of God have in every age been few and feeble. Therefore. if anything is to be argued from this, the fact that the believers in any particular doctrine are but few, is rather an argument for its truth. This, however, is a false mode of reasoning in all cases. Whether few or many embrace a principle is no criterion of truth. That is to be tried and decided by another standard; and the honest man when convinced that any proposed dogma is true, will not inquire whether few or many receive it.

In the case of Dr. Chalmers and the Free Church of Scotland, suppose that instead of five hundred ministers seceding but three besides Chalmers had left (as was the case with Erskine and his adherents more than a hundred years before), would that have made their secession wrong? The causes of separation are supposed to be the same as they were all the reasons that impelled Chalmers and his adherents to secede were in existence-but the Established Church was so corrupt that only four men could be found with conscience enough to break the tie would that fact have changed the question of duty? This is the doctrine, or a necessary inference from the doctrine of the Evangelist. But so far from this being correct, the very opposite would be true. If the hundreds that

left with Chalmers had approved the evils for which they left, it would have added fearfully to the corruption of the established church, and would have vastly diminished the hope of a reformation. It would, therefore, have added incalculable weight to the reasons for a secession. But according to the doctrine of the Evangelist, it would have rendered their withdrawal "weak and pitiful." What a difference with some people numbers do make! That the world would have scoffed at the "Comeouters," is certain; but that the holy eye of God would have looked approvingly upon them, is equally certain:

This case of the Scottish Free Church secession is the most conclusive of all proof of the hopelessness of reforming a corrupt church by remaining in it. If all the influence of Chalmers and the powerful body that sustained him, with all the powers of wealth, talents and piety which they wielded, could not reform the church, then when can such reformation be hoped for? Is the prospect in the American churches better? The evil is ten-fold greater, for in comparison with the guilt in these churches for sustaining the crime of slavery, the evil existing in the Established Church of Scotland dwindle into insignificance. The numbers that seek for reformation in the American churches are far less, while the numbers arrayed against them are almost incalculably greater. If then the Established Church of Scotland, after more than a hundred years effort, could not be reformed by the mighty influences of Chalmers, and his five hundred associates, the hope of reformation from worse evils, and against immensely greater odds in the American churches, is the very madness of folly 20

extent, and then make their past testimony an excuse for present silence, is simply by that silence to consent to the wrong.

NUMBERS AGAINST PRINCIPLE.

In an article in the New York Evangelist these sentiments

occur:

"There is sometimes, it is true, an earthquake power in a simple solemn separation from a corrupt body. Luther's heaven-adjuring protest dealt a blow at Rome from which she never will recover. The Free Church of Scotland was a sublime movement, not only justifiable, but of greater moral power than the thunderings of a hundred Chalmerses in the established pulpits could have exerted. But the impressiveness of such separations lies in their being right and unavoidable. They become pitiful and weak when they awaken no echo in the public sense of right. The scores of ruptures that have filled Scotland with petty sects, though made with great earnestness and under solemn forms, have exerted no moral power, because they had no grand justifying reason before God and men. When secession becomes the sole remaining resort, and the moral power which finds no way of exercise, gathers itself into a last act of solemn adjuration, then reason and truth find an echo in the conscience of mankind."

We were aware that many men were in the habit of judging of the right or wrong of principles by the numbers that embraced them. That a majority in any case adopt a doctrine is, with very many, an all-sufficient proof of its truth. But that this rule of judgment should be formally set forth by a religious paper claiming sympathy with the reformatory spirit of the age, we did not expect. The truth has, in all times, been rejected by the majority. The friends of God have in every age been few and feeble. Therefore. if anything is to be argued from this, the fact that the believers in any particular doctrine are but few, is rather an argument for its truth. This, however, is a false mode of reasoning in all cases. Whether few or many embrace a principle is no criterion of truth. That is to be tried and decided by another standard; and the honest man when convinced that any proposed dogma is true, will not inquire whether few or many receive it.

In the case of Dr. Chalmers and the Free Church of Scotland, suppose that instead of five hundred ministers seceding but three besides Chalmers had left (as was the case with Erskine and his adherents more than a hundred years before), would that have made their secession wrong? The causes of separation are supposed to be the same as they were all the reasons that impelled Chalmers and his adherents to secede were in existence-but the Established Church was so corrupt that only four men could be found with conscience enough to break the tie would that fact have changed the question of duty? This is the doctrine, or a necessary inference from the doctrine of the Evangelist. But so far from this being correct, the very opposite would be true. If the hundreds that left with Chalmers had approved the evils for which they left, it would have added fearfully to the corruption of the established church, and would have vastly diminished the hope of a reformation. It would, therefore, have added incalculable weight to the reasons for a secession. But according to the doctrine of the Evangelist, it would have rendered their withdrawal "weak and pitiful." What a difference with some people numbers do make! That the world would have scoffed at the "Comeouters," is certain; but that the holy eye of God would have looked approvingly upon them, is equally certain:

This case of the Scottish Free Church secession is the most conclusive of all proof of the hopelessness of reforming a corrupt church by remaining in it. If all the influence of Chalmers and the powerful body that sustained him, with all the powers of wealth, talents and piety which they wielded, could not reform the church, then when can such reformation be hoped for? Is the prospect in the American churches better? The evil is ten-fold greater, for in comparison with the guilt in these churches for sustaining the crime of slavery, the evil existing in the Established Church of Scotland dwindle into insignificance. The numbers that seek for reformation in the American churches are far less, while the numbers arrayed against them are almost incalculably greater. If then the Established Church of Scotland, after more than a hundred years effort, could not be reformed by the mighty influences of Chalmers, and his five hundred associates, the hope of reformation from worse evils, and against immensely greater odds in the American churches, is the very madness of folly 20

POSITION OF THE NEW SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS.

As the time for the meeting of Dr. Ross's secession convention approaches, it becomes more and more evident that a portion of the slaveholding members and ministers of this church will remain with the North. The fire-eaters of the church will alone withdraw, and as they are divided in counsel, perhaps not all of them. All along the border slaveholding churches will adhere to the Northern General Assembly, at least for the present.

As we have shown in former articles there is nothing whatever in the action of the late General Assembly to prevent this. It is but justice to our New School brethren to say that they do not claim to have made any advance. Their action was really and avowedly only a reiteration of the old testimonies. It was left to persons outside of that body to discover the wonderful progress which it is vainly alleged has been made. It is urged by the Northern portion of the New School Presbyterian Church, in their own justification, and in condemnation of the Southern factionists, that the latter have withdrawn simply because the former have adhered to the old landmarks.

Now the difficulty with both the Old and New School Assemblies has not been the want of a true testimony on the subject of slavery. For twenty years they kept a note in their confession of faith, ranking slaveholders with murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, with whoremongers and adulterers, and pronouncing them guilty of the highest kind of theft. Since 1818 slavery has stood branded on the minutes of the Assemblies as "utterly inconsistent with the law of God, and totally irreconcilable with the spirit of the gospel of Christ." Murder and piracy are not more than this, and therefore according to the testimony of the Presbyterian Church of both branches, these crimes are no worse than slavery. And yet, with all this testimony against it, slavery has grown with the growth and strengthened with the strength of both the Old and the New School. With these burning words blazing in their faces, they have received the men guilty of this stupendous crime to their fellowship, they have indorsed their Christian character, and raised them to the highest posts of honor in their gift.

Again, as formerly shown, it is the South that has made progress downward, and not the North that has made progress