« ZurückWeiter »
from St. Peter, but he made scythes that would not cut; and you liad another blacksmith, who said he could not see what descent from St. Peter had to do with making scythes, so long as they were well made, and this man made scythes that would cut. Where would you go to get your scythes ? — Why to the man who made scythes to cut, certainly,' replied the farmer. Well, said Dr. Beecher, that ministry which cuts is the ministry which Christ has authorized to preach. In a recent conversation on the same subject, Dr. Beecher gave his opinion by relating this story.”—p. 269.
“We shall not go so far out of our proper course as to make a theological argument to prove how much is essential to Christian discipleship. The doctrinal basis of the Alliance shows why they could not find the union which they sought. The sixth and shortest article discloses the mischief. Say the Alliance, "The justification of the sinner is by faith alone. If this is so, then faith is the only essential, and all the other articles are extra-judicial, nonessentials, about which disciples may differ, and still be disciples. If we remember right, this is very much as Christ preached, and laid the matter down himself. We can not recollect that he any where mentioned any one of the eight articles as essential to discipleship. "Wha'-- wha'-wha'—what do you say?' stammer a thousand tongues; that we must take in every man who says he has faith? Why, that would include Quakers, Czerski, and even Papists. Monstrous! Monstrous !!! Well, monstrous as it is, you must, according to your own showing, gulp it down, if you would have Christian anion in its perfectness. All the rest may be very great truths, and very necessary to be believed, in order to the most perfect Christian character, but you have made them all non-essential by your own great declaration, faith alone is the ground of justification.”—p. 340.
The principles and claims of the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Hale ably discussed, in the Journal of Commerce, and with a freedom and independence quite rare in our secular papers. His articles against Bishop Hughes's project of sectarian schools, are just and forcible, and would, in the main, apply with equal force against the project of the Old School Presbyterians for sectarian or parochial schools. We quote, from an article on the Pilgrim Fathers in answer to an attack on them by the Freeman's Journal (Roman Catholic), a brief specimen of the manner in which he dealt with the arguments of Bishop Hughes.
“ Bishop Hughes, in the versatility of his genius, delivered a lecture two or three years ago, in which he demonstrated, as he seemed to think, that Popery naturally tends to liberty and civilization, and that if it had not always produced these results, it was owing to “accidents. The Reformation under Luther he thought a great misfortune, as it interrupted the regular development of the blessings of Popery. The Bishop felt sure that the bombshells which were found in the Pope's nest just at that time were the genuine eggs of the republican goose; and that, if Luther had not scared her off, she would have hatched out, in due time, a brood of liberty, religion, and literature. No matter' that whenever one of these eggs had really been hatched, there had burst out a thousand iron slugs and all sorts of murderous things,--that was only an accident. Republican eggs will sometimes hatch that way. At any rate, the Bisiinp proved to demonstration, that the most hideous despotism which ever crushed our race would have produced liberty, order, and virtue, if only it had been left alone.”—p. 387.
Mr. Hale's series of articles in opposition to the Mexican war was written with truth and force, and in a manly, patriotic and Christian spirit. Would that all our political journals had had
the justice and courage to take the same ground! We can quote only the introductory and closing paragraphs.
“Thomas Jefferson has been ranked by the more religious part of the community as an infidel. Yet some of his sayings are worthy of the highest place in the esteem of all good men. He could not have been the worst of infidels who said in reference to the slavery which then pervaded almost all the States, • I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just;' and in reference to government, that which is morally wrong can not be politically right.' This last declaration stands in high condemnation of that disregard of moral obligation which proclaims, · All is fair in politics ;-— Our country right or wrong.' According to Mr. Jefferson's maxim, governments and political par. ties are bound by the same moral principles which bind individuals. This is the doctrine of the Bible, and must be the doctrine of all intelligent Christians and philanthropists. The opinion has been industriously inculcated, that a state of war puts an end to the common liberty of free discussion, suspends the law of morality, for the time, and binds every good citizen to unite with all his powers in support of the government of his country, whatever his private opinions may be of the rectitude or wisdom of its measures. But the opposite of this must be true, upon the rule of Mr. Jefferson. War is so terrible a calamity that governments ought not to find it a protection against public scrutiny; on the contrary, governments ought to be restrained by the consciousness that if they allow themselves to be involved in war, they will be called upon to give ample reasons for so great an evil, and during the progress of the war, will be held to a rigorous scrutiny, lest under the influence of its great temptations, they adopt measures which are immoral. That in these days a nation is at war, seems almost of necessity to imply a want of wisdom or sound morality. There was force in that declaration of a Senator who exclaimed, “Of what value is your diplomacy, if it can not save us from war."" -pp. 478, 479.
"In the midst of all the dangers that surround us, there is but one clear way of either sound morality or sound policy. It is to come out of the difficulty by the same path through which we entered it. In short, to abandon the war; to call home our young men, and leave Mexico whole and entire to her own management, and ourselves to the full
enjoyment of the boundless prosperity which Providence bestows upon us. The cry, No more appropriations for the war, must go up from all parts of the nation. It is the only cry that can place us in safety. To express opposition to the war, without declaring that the war is to be abandoned ; to oppose it, and still vote supplies for it, is only to support the administration in carrying it on. No man in the nation would be more relieved than the President by seeing an end of the war. If I understand his feelings, he would have been happy if Congress had refused appropriations at their last session. But no one dares to take the responsibility of recommending an abandonment of the war. What a disgrace it implies upon the Christianity of our country! The President recommended the war, and Congress, afraid of the people, voted it. Ile points out the means of carrying it on, and they vote the men and money through fear of the people. In my judgment, the President and Congress underrated the intelligence and morality of the people. Let the people speak, then, and undeceive their rulers. Let them know that they stand at the head of a nation, not of military rowdies, but of Christian men, full of the wisdom of peace and good will. At any rate, the tide must be turned by the people, and it can only be done by a bold and loud demand that the war should be abandoned. No more appropriations for the war.- Come away,-LET Mexico alone!! must be proclaimed through the land. Let no man call hinself a friend of peace who is not willing to take this attitude. All other opinions are upon the whole in favor of war.
“But whatever my countrymen may please to do or say, I do not intend to live or die with any of the blood-stains of this war upon me.
David Hale.”—pp. 491, 492.
We feel constrained to allude in conclusion to the political bigotry and intolerance, which were so abundantly illustrated in the treatment of Mr. Hale. We think that no one, who reads this memoir, or looks at any impartial account of Mr. Hale's life, can doubt that he was an eminently good man. Yet, while he lived, he was looked upon with distrust and suspicion by not a few even among Christians. His motives were impeached, and his conduct was misrepresented. Many men, and (we blush to say it) many in our evangelical churches, were wont to say that they had no confidence in either his integrity or his piety. He was ofien denounced both privately and publicly, and sometimes in violent language, as a knave and a hypocrite. His deeds and plans of self-denying and far seeing liberality were called acts and schemes of selfishness; and his uniform and manly Christian profession and conduct were named hypocrisy. We remember reading a paragraph in a leading political paper of New York, just after a presidential election, in which Mr. Hale was likened to one of the most brutal ruffians ever drawn by the pencil of Walter Scott. The writer censured, in very coarse terms, the conduct of the Journal of Commerce during the political struggle which had just ended, and remarked, that the Dirk Hatteraick of the concern voted the loco-foco ticket !"
Now why all this? Simply because Mr. Hale differed from these men on such difficult questions as those respecting the currency and the tariff-questions, on both sides of which are some of the most thorough political philosophers, and pure minded Christians, of whom this country can boast ?
The truth is, there is no bigotry or intolerance in this country, even among the most narrow spirited of our religious sectarians, to be compared with the bigotry and intolerance of the members of our political parties. We have no bigots who deserve to be mentioned in the same day with our political bigots. To belong to an opposite political party is thought by many to be proof positive, that one can be neither pious, nor honest. We have not infrequently heard even religious men say, that they could not believe that any intelligent democrat could be a Christian ! Now we think that the authors of such expressions, and those who were wont to use such language as we have referred to respecting Mr. Hale, would not offend a holy God more should they swear, or steal. And we feel constrained to call upon all our readers, and especially our Christian readers, to look at the odiousness and sinfulness of such intolerance, as it appears in the light of ihis memoir. We call on them to look upou it, in the light of the fact, that within ten or fifteen years, political questions and plan s, on which parties were formed, have become “obsolete ideas,” and matters of no difference at all. We call on them to apply the principles of candor, justice and Christianity to
the subject of political differences, and to judge of those who disagree with them in political opinions and conduct with that fairness which sees things as they are, and that charity which "thinketh no evil.”
The manner in which Mr. Thompson has performed the work committed to him, of preparing this volume, deserves our decided commendation. In narrating the events of Mr. Hale's life, and in drawing his character, he has made a skillful and felicitous use of the materials which care and industry could collect; and we can not see that love for his friend has affected his impartiality. The collection of Mr. Hale's writings, gathered by him, as a considerable portion of them were, in an examination of more than six thousand numbers of the Journal of Commerce, and identified as Mr. Hale's by his inquiries of the associate editor, Mr. Hallock, must have cost far more time and labor than the preparation of the memoir. The fact that Mr. Thompson has performed this laborious task, while attending to the duties of pastor of the Tabernacle Church and of associate editor of the Independent, is an illustration of how much work there is in some men.
NOTE TO THE REVIEW OF DYER ON INSPI.
We have received a communication of seventeen closely written pages from the Rev. Mr. Dyer, whose work on “the Plenary Inspiration of the Old and New Testaments," was reviewed in the New Englander for November last. We are sorry to disappoint Mr. D.'s expectation, but while we freely acknowledge our obligation to correct any misquotation or other misrepresentation of an author's statements or arguments, into which we may at any time be led, we can not admit that every author whose book we review has a right to publish a review of his reviewer at our expense. Paper and printing are as costly to us as to Mr. D. ; and we can not understand how we are under obligation to publish and distribute his strictures on our review, any more than he would have been under obligation to publish and distribute our strictures on his book.
Oue statement, however, we are bound to make for his benefit, and we make it with the greatest pleasure. Mr. D. considers himself misrepresented, in that his book is criticised as if it had attempted to demoustrate the reality of inspiration. “This," he tells us, "formed no part of the author's plan. He did not pretend to it. He assuined in his work the genuineness, authenticity and inspiration of the Holy Book, and simply endeavored to show that this inspiration is complete. Here is an essential difference; and it is not a little surprising, to say the least, that the reviewer should have so entirely overlooked it and failed to regard it. Yet, he not only did this, but proceeded to speak of the work by a reference to his own theory which the author does not approve."
Cheerfully do we concede to Mr. Dyer the benefit of this explanation. His surprise that the reviewer should have so entirely oferlooked" the plan and design of the book, cau hardly be greater than our surprise at the information that the book does not attempt at all to prove the reality of the inspiration of the Scrip tures, but is addressed to those who have no doubts on that subject. We will not inquire whether the mistake in this instance is our fault or that of the author. Nor will we raise the question how far the argument of the book is likely to be conclusive with those who admit that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, but are not ready to accept the doctrine of plenary inspiration as defined by Mr. Dyer. We leave the matter as it stands.
History of Spanish Literature. By GEORGE TICKnor. In three volumes. New
York: Harper & Brothers, 82 Cliff street. 1849.
The Spanish character and of course the Spanish literature, are clearly distinguished from the character and the literature of every other nation of Europe. Both were formed under the pressure of that unremitted contest, which for more than seven hundred years the Spaniards carried on against their Moorish invaders. In that contest, Spain fought the battles of Christendom and conquered ; after a struggle unparalleled in history, the Mahometan religion and civilization were eradicated froin western Europe. Hence, there grew up in the Spanish character for its most important element, a peculiar devotion to Christianity, as an institution placed especially under the protection of the Spanish nation as its champion, to cherish it, to fight for it, to suffer for it. Along with this religious element there also grew up a knightly loyalty, which had its origin apparently in the same cause, in the glory which surrounded those of their kings, who were most successful against the infidel Moors. These influences pervaded the nation, and have given, as we intimated, a peculiar form to Spanish literature. Mr. Ticknor has traced these influences in their widespread ramifications, and with philosophic accuracy; indeed, the view which he presents of them, constitutes one of the most interesting portions of the work.