matter of satisfaction, and whatever evil incurred, of regret, to the other. Both results must be accepted and acknowledged as the achievements or failures of American Presbyterians. In preparing this sketch, the guiding principle must be that of truth impartially stated. Yet, if separate sketches are to be given, the writer of either will stand somewhat in the position of an advocate, and must not be held as violating the wholesome rule, "to study the things that make for peace, and to guard against all needless and offensive references to the causes that have divided us,” if, on some critical points he states the case of his clients from their own point of view, though, to the other party, it may have a different aspect. It is to be hoped, however, there will be very little even of the appearance of partisanship. It will be readily granted by those who have studied the history, that the New School party in the old Presbyterian church did not desire the separation. Their feelings were against it; their interest was manifestly against it; they had no points to carry which, in their estimation, were likely to be subserved by it; their action, up to the last moment, was directed with a view to its prevention. When it took place, it found them totally unprepared for the exigency. They had no plans concocted for separate action, no policy adapted to the new condition in which they found themselves. If such was the case with the act itself, still more was it with the manner of doing it. The cutting off of the four synods, on the principles which were held to justify it, seemed to them so arbitrary and undiscrimi nating a measure, that they had not supposed it would be contemplated. Why not dissolve the Assembly as well, since it contained the same elements? Why not rather take measures to eject the unsound and alien elements, carefully preserving such as were sound and constitutional? Why break up these large organizations, the conservators of large and widely extended interests, simply for having followed rules of action adopted for them by the General Assembly? So they reasoned. We say this, not to vindicate their position, but only to state it. The other side took a different view, and their arguments are on record. But these were theirs, and must be considered, if we would understand their action. They held the act of exclusion to be unconstitutional, and felt bound, not only in justice to their brethren, deprived, as they thought, of rights sacredly secured to them, but in justice also to the church itself, and to their own constitutional pledges, to make common cause with those brethren, and organize the General Assembly on what they deemed the only true principles. This they did; and by the subsequent course of events, particularly by the final decision of the court in Bank, found themselves, against their wishes and expectations, a separate body. It has been a matter of surprise to many, that the New School party, immediately upon the disruption, should have exhibited so little strength and so great a lack of decision. Up to that time they had been a strong, compact, and steadily advancing party. They claimed to be the majority, and no doubt included in their ranks a large share of the aggressive activity of the church and a large proportion of the young men. In numbers, the two parties were nearly balanced, and every year there was a sharp struggle for the ascendency in the General Assembly. But during seven years, from 1831 to 1837, inclusive, the New School held the majority in that body five times, and their rivals of the Old School only twice. It might naturally have been expected, that in case of a division, the advantage in respect to efficiency, organic life, and growth would have been on their side. Why the result was otherwise will be seen when we consider the obstacles. Unquestionably the blow which severed them from the legally recognized Presbyterian church was to them a stunning blow. Its decisive character, partly because of its unexpected occurrence, they failed at first to understand; to use a modern military phrase, it quite demoralized them. It loosened all the bonds of their organic union. Their membership began at once to fly apart. Many who adhered to the body lost their interest in it. For many years they scarcely knew whom they could rely upon as permanently of their number. It crippled their resources. It separated them from their strongest institutions. It threw suspicion, not only on the soundness of their faith, --the alleged defects of which had been assigned as one of the chief motives of the acts of excision, but the genuineness of their denominational standing. It even raised the question of their right to exist as an organized body. Indeed, scarcely had the disruption occurred, when the standard of another denomination was openly raised within their own camp, among those who had professed to be of them; and from the highest watch-tower of the New School citadel, as it then regarded itself, rang out the cry of revolt, "To your tents, O Israel." The disadvantage was increased by the policy which the other party, awakened to new life and organic energy by the separation, saw fit to adopt in regard to them; the policy of "absorption," so called. In their view, the separation was final. Considered as an organized body, they did not know the New School; they did not suppose it could live. But its elements, of which a large part were still held in esteem by them, they desired to recover. Hence, immediately on the withdrawal of the New School, they adopted a resolution which operated, during the whole period which fol lowed, as a standing invitation to churches, ministers, presbyteries, and minorities of presbyteries, to disconnect themselves from the New School and become united with the Old School Assembly. Taken from their own point of view, this was an affectionate invitation to all sound Presbyterians, unhappily separated from the true Presbyterian fold, to return, with an assurance of welcome. Taken from that of the New School, it was an invitation and encouragement to unfaithfulness, disturbing and disintegrating their ranks, and so a source of irritation and distrust. In the light of recent events over which we all rejoice and thank God, it will be held as an honor to the Christian spirit of the New School, though it delayed the consolidation of the body and the settlement of their denominational plans, that, for several years, amidst those troubled scenes, they did not give up the hope or effort to bring about a reunion of the church. In a convention held just before the disruption, they resolved, and sent the resolution to a convention of their brethren, "that we are ready to co-operate in any ef |