ith these churches, generally-so far as the pplicant is concerned-is a mere instrument or revealing that intelligent choice by him, without which all adult membership of any Church of Christ were a mockery. And if, fter the member has matured his habits of hought, he find his beliefs assuming a somewhat different garb from that worn earlier, there is no "debauchery of conscience" in permitting him to remain in good standing in the church, always provided that he consistently adhere to and manifest that choice of which church-membership is the expression.

These instances furnish a sufficient refutation of the sweeping accusation laid at the doors of orthodox Protestantism. Further, it is believed that they afford a sufficient specimen of the whole body to warrant the use of the assertion that "Orthodox Protestantism, generally, refuses to bind her communicants by explicit creeds." It certainly cannot be true, for instance, that Arminians are less liberal than the much-berated Calvinists and the close-communion Baptists!

jority suppress their best convictions, trim down their sermons and other productions to a rigid conformity to their creed." This is simply incredible. Not only because, as we shall see, there is very inadequate occasion for such suppression on the part of the most, but also because, if the assertion be true, the majority of the orthodox Protestant ministry are unworthy of respect as honest men. is not proposed to make this page and its writer ridiculous by assuming the burden of proof of the question here raised. Not even the bold assertion of An Orthodox Minister can make the charge of such dishonesty, on the majority of our ministers, respectable enough to demand a proved denial.

It

All assertions which are based on the misstatements so far noticed, need no further disproof, and all further reference to details, in respect of them, may safely be omitted.

There yet needs to be a reference, however, to certain false notions of rights which An Orthodox Minister evidently holds. He seems, by his merely implying them, to hold them as axioms; they are false notions nevertheless.

If it be claimed, however, that the method or methods alluded to imply a creed, and fetter Christian liberty, it is sufficient to reply that church-membership as indicated by the Founder of the church, is for those who turn from sin to Him. If this turning, when done intelligently, implies belief in certain facts, as it does, it is only as all action proceeds upon belief; and this action which Christ requires, must be required of applicants by the church, let it imply creed or not. If this will not satisfy An Orthodox Minister, he must go elsewhere than to Christ for his authority in church matters, or must take the liberty of improving on His teachings. Categorically, the requirement of whatever is essential to turning to Christ can impose no needless fetters on Christian liberty, and this is the only specific liberty which the Christian church is warranted in guaranteeing to her members. We challenge another of An Orthodox Minister's facts. We do not believe of our orthodox Protestant minist

"the ma

creeds they may choose. Who shall deny them this right? Who shall deny them the right to forbid entrance to their circle save on the assumption of the same bond by the intrant? How is he injured by the refusal ? The writer does not think this scheme of church-fellowship the wisest one. He thinks the church wiser which receives Christians to its fold while they are young and untaught in the faith, and unable, therefore, to adopt such a bond intelligently. This is the idea and habit of many--if not of most-Protestants. But if others wish to take the other course, who shall hinder them by the cry of tyranny? They are not the only Christians. They have not a monopoly of the means of grace. the applicant go where it suits him better. Perhaps some of the Baptist and of the Congregationalist churches, perhaps some whole denominations, act on this plan. What then? Would An Orthodox Minister be so inconsistent, while pleading for liberty, as to deny to those Christians the use of their liberty to associate together on any terms on which as Christians they might agree?

Let

It seems also to be a notion of his that the church, in such a case, plays the tyrant on its members because, forsooth, they do not

want to leave it. It is "the church they love, and around which are entwined the fondest memories of their childhood and youth." Yet they doubt or reject its creed, now that their convictions have matured; but the tyranny of the church compels them to give "an outward adherence" still! Not at all. Suppose that they did not love their church, that they had no such attachment as would lead them to prefer remaining at the cost of hypocrisy then they would want to go out. There would be no "bondage" then, would there? But the only difference in the case supposed, is because of the attachment formed to the church. Is the church responsible for that attachment? Is it tyranny to draw the hearts of the members into such attachment? And yet this is the only possible anchorage that tyranny can have in the case.

:

The rather, such members merit rebuke, and it is not fair to arouse our sympathy for them. That sympathy rather belongs to the church which they harm by their false attitude. The church is no tyrant when she compels a man to follow his conscience. The man who sacrifices his love of truth, his honor, to mere attachment, is unworthy of sympathy for his false position, however much we may sympathize with him on other grounds; and the church which shall effect his removal from that false position deserves to be applauded, not condemned. An Orthodox Minister is pleading the case of men with a very weak conscience, who, perchance, may need the very hardship which he would avert.

It is a false notion, again, that it is a useless or wanton hardship for the average minister, of orthodox Protestantism, to be pledged to a creed.

The minister has time for investigation before he need subscribe. His mind has been trained in logic, he has from two to four years of mature manhood to devote to the express work of investigation, during which period he may at any time turn aside from the ministry without dishonor or without serious loss in any way, and he may do this even at the close of this period; or he may wait still longer, until his convictions shall become settled. He is then fully, fairly and sharply examined. Even yet he may honorably and without serious loss turn from the ministry. If he do not, he is then bound, in many respects.

But shall it be expected, in ordinary cases, that there will be change of view in any matter of vital importance, after all this preparation? Certainly not; and usually there

is no such change. An Orthodox Minister is pleading the case of some ministers who are very much in the ridiculous plight of certain young men in debt who plead the statute called "the baby-act."

Still, it is said, it is probable that there will be change or development in some minor matters, and there ought to be. To be sure; and the most comprehensive creed in use among Protestants permits such change and development, to the fullest extent to which most men who were well educated before ordination will care to claim it—permits it, without loss of denominational standing or influence. There is large room for develop ment, while yet one remains honorably bound by his creed.

Yet still, it is urged, some cases will be found where these limits prove too narrow for honor and conscience. Perhaps so; probably so. What then?—Here arises to the surface another sentiment so manifestly false that it is marvelous how An Orthodox Minister could suffer himself to use it in his plea. It is urged that it is a hardship to any one who finds himself heterodox, to follow his conscience, and that therefore the imposition of a creed which shall drive the heretic out is an infringement of liberty. Perhaps this sequence was not meant; it is manifestly illogical. What, then, is meant? Is it that church-members have not the right to demand limits beyond which the religious teachers of their children shall not go? It is certainly the right of any one, knowing, as we all do know, that the young and even the old ordinarily fall in, in most respects, with the teachings of their pastor, to require of him limits and measures of his teachings; that is, a creed. Why has he not this right? Why has not an assemblage of churches-a sect, if you please—the right to agree on this basis of action? If there is no sin when one church uses it, there is none in the use of it by two churches, by a dozen, a thousand; and these unite and form the sect. If, then, the sect requires its ministers to subscribe to the creed which it maintains, what harm results? Whose right is infringed? Practically--in the Presbyterian church, for example-a large number of the heads of families do make this demand of the church at large, and all the other members agree with them, allowing them that right. They have it; it would be bondage indeed were they to be deprived of it But if the church shall ordain ministers without the imposition of the creed upon them, these Christian people are deprived of a cherishe right, and are made subjects of bondage, and

they must leave the church which their money has built on the basis of the nowviolated contract. Would An Orthodox Minister produce us this bondage? The course he advocates would most certainly result in its establishment.

And yet he advocates the cause of the few -they are the few, as must appear from considerations already adduced--who find themselves tempted to remain in the ministry at the cost of honor. How does he propose to remedy their hard lot? By infringing upon the rights of the people who have a right to demand, and who practically agree in demanding, creed-subscription. He would secure this liberty of these few ministers at the cost of such wholesale "bondage!"

The rather, let them take up their hardship, and endure it, for conscience' sake. Let them withdraw from the church against whose tenets their convictions are aroused.

At this point we are confronted with another false notion, implied, as if it were an axiom not needing direct statement. The temptations which this pervert meets with, in the way of his leaving the church whose doctrines he disbelieves, are so great as to reduce him to bondage. And the responsibility for this bondage is laid, not upon the weak conscience which yields, nor upon the temptation which conquers, but upon the

church!

True, there are temptations; but shall one's manhood surrender to them? If he be not man enough to resist "the hope of preferment on the one hand," and the relegation to "silence and obscurity" on the other, if he refuse for conscience's sake to suffer loss the necessary loss-of denominational influence, of prospects, of place, then he is already too great a coward to be worthy the high office of a Christian minister; too great a coward to be worthy a hearing when his piteous whine is uttered to the public. Let him call into action that courage which his love of truth, his freedom of thought, is designed to develop, and let him enter the lists in other company. No danger that he shall not find the company! There is almost no heresy that is not some

where maintained in the pulpit nowadays. Or, let him strike out alone, as a Luther, a Calvin, and a Knox have done before him ; else let him confess that his independence of thought has not made him a man of such sturdy integrity as they manifested. Or, let him desist from preaching, if that be necessary for conscience' sake. Let him follow his trade; let him follow the plow if need be; other ministers have done the like before him, when questions of health drove them from the pulpit. God does not call all to be ministers; let him serve God in some other walk of life. Or, if he be not strong enough for this self-sacrifice, let him remain the craven that he is, and let him not charge the guilt of his dishonor on creeds or churches, but hold his peace, and bear the accusations of his conscience as his due.

It is astonishing that any man should make so pitiful a plea as An Orthodox Minister has made for so small a specimen of manhood as fills his eye. It is astonishing beyond measure that one who is himself in fellowship with them, should assert that a majority of our clergy are such poltroons. More, it is incredible. The ministry of orthodox Protestantism is composed of no such meanspirited men. There may be a few such among them; there doubtless are; else we had not heard such unmanly complaints. It is a pity that An Orthodox Minister should have had his ear turned in their direction; more pity that he had not more fully investigated their claim before endorsing it before the public. Pity; for he runs a narrow risk, among the uncharitable, of being himself held in low esteem as one of that unhappy class of men who wear the garb of the orthodox Protestant ministry while yet they disbelieve its utterances; who are such arrant hypocrites (An Orthodox Minister is our authority for the assertion that there are such, else we dare not make it) as to "suppress their best convictions, trim down their sermons and other utterances to a rigid conformity with their creed," because they are such cravens that they cannot follow conscience at the cost of hardship.

"WHO knows," wrote Mr. Beecher to Mr. Bonner, in a droll letter which conveyed his acceptance of the proposition to write a story for the Ledger-"who knows but that some future critic may refer to me as that celebrated novelist (who sometimes preached) ?" If the critic of the future shall undertake to tell how many other things Edward Eggleston has done besides preaching sermons and writing novels, he will have a job on his hands. Though he was born in Southern Indiana, of Virginian ancestors, and never before he came to New York had lived nearer to New England than Minnesota (measuring by the scale of civilization rather than the scale of miles), he would pass very cleverly for the typical Yankee, who knows how to do everything, from the tinkering of a clock to the construction of a theodicy. This versatility of employment has been his fate rather than his choice, albeit it has brought him a knowledge of life larger than he could have gained if he had had the ordering of all his affairs.

Vevay, Indiana, a picturesque village on the banks of the Ohio river, was his birthplace, and he was born in the last month of VOL. VI.-36

that disastrous """ '37," whose record of financial ruin has been familiar to some of us from infancy. His father, who was a lawyer of literary tastes, and who was a member of the State Senate and a candidate for Congress long before the era of salary-grabs, died when Edward was nine years old, bequeathing to him little more than a passion for books. The remaining years of his boyhood were spent in farm labor, and as a clerk in a country store; part of the time in a rude Hoosier neighborhood, where Jeems Phillips, the champion speller, yet abides, and where families by the name of Means still worship God in a Hard-shell church; and part of the time in Milford, a town on "Clifty Creek," in the interior of the State, where the greater part of the materials for The Hoosier Schoolmaster were gathered.

The marriage of his mother to an eminent Methodist Doctor of Divinity in Indiana, gave him what the people of his neighborhood would call "a right smart chance of travel," and secured to him the opportunity of seeing as much of life as can be found in the river-towns of his native State. He was a sickly boy, never able to endure the con