not merely the catholic system of doctrine (i.e. the system held in common by the Greek, Latin, and Protestant churches); not merely the system held in common by all Protestants, whether Lutheran, Arminians, or Reformed, but the distinctive system of the Reformed churches. For this they have uniformly contended, and to this they are conscientiously pledged. In the second place, it would be a palpable breach of faith to consent to a reunion on any other terms. The Old School church has received large benefactions, constituting almost the entire, if not the entire, endowments of all its theological seminaries and colleges, which were made on the faith of its being and continuing a Presbyterian and a Calvinistic body. For that church, therefore, to unite itself with any body of ministers and churches which are either not Presbyterian or not Calvinistic, or who, if themselves Calvinistic, are not willing to make the sincere and honest profession of the Calvinistic system in its integrity a condition of ministerial communion, would be a breach of faith, and would justly work a forfeiture of those endowments. In the third place, a union on any other terms would lead inevitably to a revival of all the conflicts, jealousy, and bitterness, which afflicted and disgraced the church before its disruption. Such a union, instead of being a blessing, would be a curse.

We are therefore satisfied that the time has not yet come for the reunion of the Old and New School branches of our church. They are doubtless becoming year by year more and more agreed on the vital points on which they differed. This approximation, if not hindered by premature and injudicious attempts at union, will, it is to be hoped, continue, until both parties are so far of one heart and one mind that outward union will be a natural and necessary consequence of their inward unity.

P.S.-Since the above article was written, our attention has been turned to the Pastoral Letter addressed to the churches by the New School Assembly of 1838. We are much gratified to find that the Assembly take the same view of the points of difference which led to the division of the church as that we have presented. Those points were, first, the union of Congregationalists and Presbyterians in our church courts; or the validity and force of the Plan of Union; and, second, the import of the terms of subscription to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms. As to the former, the Assembly say, "When the tide of population began to roll westward, and the territories of our church were fast filling up with pious emigrants from the east, a proposal

Reunion of Old and New School Presbyterians. 607

was made by the General Assembly of our church to the Association of Connecticut, to permit the union of Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements, for the greater facility of extending and supporting the institutions of religion. This union, so congenial to the spirit of the gospel, exerted for a long time an auspicious influence in the extension of Presbyterian Churches from the Hudson to the Mississippi. But at length, in the mysterious providence of God, it came to pass that the very causes of our prosperity became the occasions of disaster. For, in the rapid multiplication of new states and Presbyterian Churches, it soon became apparent that native American Presbyterians must unavoidably become a majority of the church; and though the slight variations of doctrine and policy created no alarm while the helm of power was supposed to be safe, the prospect of its passing into other hands created a strong sensation."

We are not concerned with the theory which underlies this paragraph, viz., that the New School is a "Native American Presbyterian" party, and of course the Old School a foreign American Presbyterian party, and that the whole contest was a struggle for power. The only point on which we are now interested, is the admission of the fact that the union of Congregationalists and Presbyterians in our church was one great source of the division. One party proposed the abrogation of that Plan of Union, the other resisted it; one voted for it, the other voted against it; and when passed, entered their solemn protest against the abrogation on the minutes.

As to the "terms of subscription," this document quotes what the Old Synod called their act preliminary to the Adopting Act, to shew that any man, otherwise competent, should be admitted to the ministry in our church, who did not depart from the Westminster Confession of Faith in any article" essential or necessary in doctrine, worship, or discipline," or, as they are elsewhere called, "essential and necessary articles of faith." In process of time, however, it is said, efforts were made to change these terms, and "the slight shades of doctrinal differences always known and permitted to exist in the church, before and since the Adopting Act, and recognised in every form as consistent with the Confession of Faith and the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace, became the occasions of alarm, and whisperings, and accusations, and at length of ecclesiastical trials for heresy.

Now as no trials for heresy were instituted by Old School men, except for the avowal of the peculiar doctrines of New

Havenism, and as the first public avowal of those doctrines by the New Haven divines was made in 1839, they can hardly be said to have existed and to have been allowed in the church "before and since the Adopting Act" of 1729. And as those doctrines in the judgment of Unitarians, of Orthodox New England divines (such as Dr Woods, Dr Tyler, Dr Nettleton, Dr Hall, &c., &c.), as well as of Old School Presbyterians, are utterly inconsistent with Calvinism, it is as clear as day where the trouble lies. It is no less clear from the whole tenor of this Pastoral Letter, as well as of "The Declaration of the (N. S.) Assembly" in 1839, that there can be no reunion of the two branches of the Presbyterian Church, which does not rest, 1, On a clear and distinct agreement as to whether Congregationalists are to be allowed to sit and act in our church courts, and congregationally organised churches be recognised as constituent parts of our body; and 2, On an equally clear agreement as to the terms of subscription to the Confession of Faith. Experience has taught us that it is not sufficient to agree to adopt that Confession as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. It does contain the general system of Christianity, in which all Christians agree; but it contains also the distinctive system of doctrine known as Augustianism or Calvinism. There must be an agreement as to which of these two senses is the one in which the system of doctrine contained in the Confession is to be adopted. And further, it would seem also to be necessary to come to an understanding as to what is, and what is not, essential to an honest adoption of the Calvinistic system. Any union which leaves these several points undetermined would be a violation of principle, a breach of faith, and the occasion either of corruption or conflict in the church.

Herbert Spencer's Philosophy.

609

ART. VIII.-Herbert Spencer's Philosophy.*

First Principles of a New System of Philosophy. By HERBERT SPENCER. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1865.

Illustrations of Universal Progress: a Series of Discussions. By HERBERT SPENCER. With a Notice of Spencer's New System of Philosophy. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1865.

The Principles of Psychology. By HERBERT SPENCER. London: Longman, Brown, Green, & Longmans. 1855.

Education, Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. By HERBERT SPENCER. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1861.

The Correlation and Conservation of Forces. A Series of Expositions by Prof. Grove, Prof. Helmholtz, Dr Mayer, Dr Faraday, Prof. Liebig, and Dr Carpenter. With an Introduction and brief Biographical Notices of the Chief Promoters of the New Views. By EDWARD L. Youmans, M.D. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1865.

THE

rank which Mr Herbert Spencer has obtained among English thinkers, his fertility and pretensions as a philosophical author, the skilful and persistent efforts to give his works currency and influence in this country, the evident existence among us of a coterie of his admirers, who are seeking to insinuate his principles into our literature and science, our philosophy and religion, our education and politics, furnish ample reasons for an immediate and careful examination of the distinctive peculiarities of his system. To this work we now address ourselves, and invite the candid attention of our readers.

Perhaps the urgent occasion for this service will be more obvious, if we state how it happened that we were led to undertake it, while it will explain why the foregoing list of works includes one of which he is not the author. We refer, of course, to that on the "Correlation and Conservation of Forces," consisting of treatises by several eminent savants, collected and edited by Professor Youmans, who reveals his own animus in giving the compilation to the public (whatever may have been the intent of the several authors), in a somewhat brilliant introductory essay. Having had our attention turned to this work, both by its pregnant title, and the unstinted commendations of it in secular and religious journals, we were led to examine it. It is, as we have since found, mainly a collection of the treatises referred to by Spencer in the ninth chapter of his First Principles, in which he treats of the "Correlation and Equivalence of Forces." It has the benefit of Professor Youman's gloss or

*From "The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review." Edited by Charles Hodge, D.D. April 1865.

exegetical comment, for the purpose of rendering it an auxiliary and propedeutic to Spencer's philosophy. The main principle elucidated in these treatises is one of the latest and most beautiful discoveries of modern science. It is twofold-1. That, in the normal course of things, force and matter are not annihilated or diminished. When they cease to exist in one form, they pass into another, as fuel in combustion into the ash, gases, and heat evolved. This is what is meant by the "Conservation of Force." 2. The various physical forces are so correlated as to be mutually convertible, or transformable into each other. For example, there is much which goes to shew, not only that electricity, galvanism, and magnetism, are mutually convertible into each other, but all are convertible into heat, which in its turn is resolvable into motion. So far, we simply share in the delight and instruction afforded by so grand and comprehensive an induction. But there are exaggerations of these doctrines which involve materialism and atheism. A numerous class assert not only that the physical forces in nature are conserved, according to the good pleasure of God, but that they are in their nature indestructible: others still, that they cannot be created nor destroyed, increased nor diminished, by any power whatsoever. This is clear atheism. It exalts blind force and unconscious fate to the throne of the universe. What Mr Spencer's views of each of the points here presented are, we shall see in due time. Just now we have to do with the book edited by Professor Youmans. And we must say, that some of the utterances of the physicists in this volume have a portentous look, whatever may have been the sense intended by the writers. Mayer styles this force "indestructible." Grove says: "In all phenomena, the more closely they are investigated, the more are we convinced that, humanly speaking, neither matter nor force can be created nor annihilated," p. 199. This would seem decisive enough. But as he immediately proceeds with the following language, we are glad to think he must have had some meaning consistent with theism :"Causation is the will, creation the act of God." But aside from this saving clause, his language is, to say the least, ominous. Faraday presents it as a corollary from his doctrine of the conservation of force, that "none can vary in absolute amount; each must be definite at all times, whether for a particle or all the particles in the universe, and the sum also of the three forces (chemical, electrical, and of gravity) must be equally unchangeable," pp. 379, 380. Liebig, in explaining Mayer's view, says, "that all these causes (forces), as far as relates to their quantity, possess