some distance, and keep the rocky rampart of Sierra Nevada on his left, some five hundred miles, in order to find a pass over them. This made the journey to the Arkansas two thousand miles, which, in due east course, was about nine hundred miles. During that journey, even in California, he found many sandy and barren plains, proving the country not to be altogether so many square miles of fertility. Facts will prove that many leagues of worthless land mar the excellence of this country. For instance, Fremont says that the extensive valley of the San Joaquin 66 presents every variety of soil, from dry and unproductive to well wa tered and luxuriantly fertile." Besides these sterile tracts in the level country, we must also substract the broad and rocky slopes of the mountains which hem it in its whole length. The climate is remarkably fine, if we except the single draw back on the highest capabilities for agriculture, its tendency to aridity. It is not so faulty in this respect as Lower California, and the country east of the mountains already described. Yet the agriculturalist can not rely with any degree of certainty on the rains of heaven. To be above the fear of drought, he must irrigate, for which there are facilities in many parts of the territory.

Our government, no doubt, attaches the highest importance to the bays and harbors, which are said to be very capacious and safe. Of these the public are sufficiently informed already, and of their prospective importance in the trade with Eastern Asia. The day when this shall be the case is too remote to call for remark here. Until a railroad can be constructed across the continent, these harbors will not be of much service in that trade, and such obstacles exist to a project of this kind, that it may reasonably be doubted whether even American enterprise will dare to grapple with them for a long time to come. Nature has lifted

ramparts of rock heaven-high be tween us and California, which we do not say may not yet be hewn down, but which we do believe will long remain untouched. And before any such scheme can be available or permanent, the savages must be civilized, or removed, or exterminated; but judging from the history of the savages, as seen in our slave states, this last would be the smallest of obstacles, and easily shoved aside.

And now, glancing at the country over which we have passed so rapidly, searching twelve hundred miles from the head-waters of the Arkansas before we found a country which at all deserves the name of being productive and valuable, who of us believes that California on the Pacific, cut off from our remotest settlements by a vast desert, and broad, high mountains, can be bound long to Washington as a center? Let it grow and become important, in a section of the world where its habits and interests will be peculiar to itself, separated by a journey of three thousand miles from the center of power, who believes such a prize will long stay in our grasp? Indeed, as we have looked at the subject of American conquests, we have thought of a fear which was once expressed by sea-faring men concerning that huge iron steamer, the Great Britain, that her length was so great that she was liable to break in two on the back of some high wave, or with her stern on one wave and stem on another, with her center unsupported, she might go to pieces by her own weight. Is there no danger of the same sort to our country, reaching now from Maine to California, a huge, weary length? Should there come some such a storm as the rabid nullificationists of the South are threatening, we confess to the painful fear, that on the back of that wave we should break in two. Or should the ill-fated vessel rest on two mountain waves,

one stirred by freedom, the other by slavery, we should tremble lest she should fall to pieces by her own unwieldy weight!

Such are our prospects in California, and such the fears to which this base war has made us heirs-a war conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity-a war commenced for the extension of slavery, and costing us, who abhor such a result as we do death, TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND MEN, AND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTYSIX MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BESIDES

THE IMMENSE BURDENS SADDLED ON US BY THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. But if our deductions prove not false concerning the utter unfitness of these conquests for the purposes they were intended to subserve, we thank Him, whose power has been displayed sublimely in heaving up these mountains into such a rugged and unproductive confusion, as shall forever banish from this territory a system which traffics in the image of God, and whose presence, any where, is an unmitigated curse.

THE ETHICS

양

THAT the baneful effects of religious controversy far exceed the good effects, and that it deserves for this reason to be discountenanced by the friends of truth, is a very prevalent opinion. These evils are indisputably very great, and very much to be deplored. Controversy often results in the lasting alienation of Christians from each other, not only of the immediate disputants, but of all who take sides with them. The more remote effect upon the world is perhaps an evil of still greater magnitude. It is questionable whether there is any other objection to Christianity which has so much influence in strengthening unbelief, as the controversies of the church. The unfairness and bitterness of these conflicts bring Christianity itself into doubt, and the doctrines contended for, often the most essential parts of the system, into undeserved odium. Nor are the true ends of controversy very frequently attained as a compensation for these terrible evils of the conflict. The errorist, who, if he had been left to his own reflections and studies, or to the silent influence of time, might have come to the light, is hopelessly wedded by controversy to his own opinions, at least forever

Tyler

set against the faith of his opponent. Nor does the cause of truth always come out of these conflicts unharmed. After the smoke and dust of battle have passed away, we discover that the victory has not been won without a fearful sacrifice, and it is often quite doubtful whether, after all, the advantage is on the side of truth. Bad results are sufficiently apparent, but the good contended for, the refutation of error, and the establishment of truth in the convictions of men, is not so manifestly attained.

What shall we, then, say of the defenders of orthodoxy in the Christian church? Shall we deny their title to gratitude? Shall we say that the peace and purity of the church are not indebted to their labors? Shall we frown upon all controversy among Christians?

We might, perhaps, be driven to this extreme, if we were forced to take the controversies of the church, as they have been for the most part conducted, as a type of what they are by necessity. The unchristian manner in which religious controversies have generally been carried on, has given them, by way of eminence, the name of polemics; as at the first the Apostle James denomi

nated them, "wars and fightings." This they ought never to be; yet this they have been for the most part. The parties commonly accuse each other not only of error, but of dishonesty; and unhappily there is, in most cases, too much reason for these mutual criminations. Persuaded that he is the champion of the truth-set for the defense of the gospel-each conceives himself at liberty to use any weapon within his reach to defend his own positions, and to carry the war into the enemy's territory. He esteems nothing sacred that stands in the way of what he considers the vindication and triumph of "the faith once delivered to the saints." He is prepared to stab the reputation of his antagonist in any vulnerable point, if that will impair the force of his argument with the community, and to lacerate his feelings by unjust imputations and abusive language, in retaliation for similar insults, and even without such provocation. He does not scruple to supply what is wanting in the cogency of his argument by the pungency of his wit. He makes himself remembered as an enemy, rather than as a fair and honorable disputant. He exposes the purity of his faith to suspicion by his unchristian spirit, and hatred of him is naturally transferred to his creed. Some allowance, it is true, is to be made for mutual misapprehension. Occupying different positions, and viewing the subject from different points, having rushed to the encounter without proper consideration, it is not surprising that the parties should differ in stating the questions at issue between them. This would naturally happen were there no intention to misrepresent; and it is proved to be common by the complaints of unfairness called forth by every controversy. No one acknowledges himself fairly represented by his opponent-all complain of wrong-and to suppose they misapprehend each other, is the

most charitable explanation of the wrong-otherwise we must either deny its existence, or refer it all to intentional misrepresentation. Allowance must also be made for the force of custom. Although the manner of the controvertist is very apt to be determined by his inward spirit; yet it may be influenced, also, by the custom of conducting controversies with asperity. This custom, long established, has become the law of controversy-the mold into which it naturally runs and shapes itself. The controvertist deems himself at liberty to employ any of the weapons which use has sanctioned. Hence the harshness of his manner is not an infallible index of a malignant spirit. He may have a kinder and purer heart than we should suspect from the style of his pen.

But whatever may be the exact amount of criminality chargeable upon theological disputants, the terrible injury inflicted by their conflicts upon the cause of Christ, can hardly be exaggerated. The memhers of Christ have been riven asunder, not by difference of opinion, not by free discussion of their differences, but by disputation conducted with acrimony and unfairness.

Misrepresentations, arising, sometimes from misapprehension, sometimes, no doubt, from design, have been, from time to time, incorporated into the literature of the sects, until they have established what threatens to be a lasting prejudice. If Christians had from the first conducted their controversies with urbanity, and while they manifested an earnest desire to commend the truth to universal belief, had shown as conscientious a regard for the laws of controversy-exaggerating nothing, and setting down nothing in malice-expressing toward their opponents none but generous feelings, the whole effect would have been good-the evils, which have made controversy the dread of the church, would never have been

known; "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" would more frequently have crowned the contest; and the religion which had such advocates would more likely have been accepted, as worthy of its high claim to be divine.

Our readers will understand from these remarks, that we trace the evils complained of to the manner of controversy, not to controversy itself, which, properly conducted, we be lieve would be productive of good only. Controversy is that power which presides over the labors of the Essayist, of the Chair of Philosophy, and of the Pulpit; which subjects, indeed, all doubtful propositions to the crucible of reason; which brings truth into the light of demonstration, and tears from error the veil of plausibility, which ignorance and sophistry have cast over it. It begins in criticism, by calling opinions in question, which, if erroneous, it exposes and refutes ; but which, if true, it only serves to confirm, by affording an occasion for displaying the evidence before the world. Disputing opinions which would otherwise be received by many on authority, and provoking a rejoinder, it brings up a re-investigation, and, in the end, strips error of its covering, and establishes the truth on a firmer basis.

There is one effect of controversy, in respect to which observing men are divided in opinion; some holding it to be a serious evil, and others regarding it with indulgence-we refer to the agitation of the public mind. It will disturb the peace of church, is a sufficient reason in the opinion of some for suppressing discussion, by any lawful means, on questions which are likely to divide and excite the community. Others regarding a dead calm as a greater evil than the fiercest excitement, are pleased to accept a theological controversy with all the sad consequences of the hottest conflict, for the sake of the clearer sky, which is ex

pected to succeed the storm. We confess ourselves in sympathy with the latter class, rather than the former. We have less dread of a mountain torrent than of a stagnant pool; the one may swell into a desolating flood, but the other may breed a pestilence still more destructive. We concede too much, however, when we compare religious controversy to a destructive flood. It is controversy, as it has been too generally conducted, not as it should be, to which this comparison is applicable. There is something, we confess, in the very nature of controversy, to awaken animosity; for opposition to one's cherished opinions can never be agreeable, even if it should be conducted with perfect amenity and good breeding. But there is for this very reason a greater necessity of shunning every thing needlessly offensive to the other party.

In the exposition which we propose to offer, of the laws of controversy, we disclaim the pretension of novelty. of novelty. We profess to have made no discoveries, and to have no views, which might not readily occur, on reflection, to any mind. We believe, however, that Christians generally have no well defined and settled views of the law of Christ on this subject, or of the extent to which it is violated by controversial writers; and we should be glad to aid in forming a correct public sentiment in respect to it, which no man, who values his reputation, would dare disregard.

Before defining the rule of duty on this subject, we would notice the relations of the controvertist to the truth.

The parties to a controversy may both be in error on the general subject at issue. History furnishes abundant illustrations of this fact. Those controversies in which the champions for the divine right of Presbytery contend against the equally exclusive claims of Episcopacy, belong to this category.

Neither party stood on tenable ground. They were right in denying each other's claims, while neither could maintain his own. Many of the fiercest conflicts have been waged upon points which could on neither side be established, and which, in some cases, were too frivolous to merit the least contention. Those who have inflamed the worst passions in the church, by violent controversy on such insufficient grounds, have a fearful account to render at the last day. It is manifest that all such controversies ought to cease.

But though both parties may possibly be contending for error, both can not be on the side of truth. One party, at least, must be designedly or undesignedly expending his energies against the cause of his master. The controvertist is therefore enga ged in a business of terrible responsibility, on which assuredly no conscientious man will enter without fervent prayer, and careful study, lest he should be found fighting against God.

Both parties-the advocate of truth and his opponent-stand in one and the same relation to the law of Christ, in respect to the spirit and the manner of controversy. They are both within the pale of nominal Christianity. They both profess, though sometimes with serious qualifications, to take the Bible as their standard. They at least profess to be Christians; and their object in controversy is to commend their particular views of Christianity to the belief of others. Self-consistency, therefore, as well as other considerations, demand of them a sacred regard for the Christian law of controversy. The conviction that our opponent is a heretic, and an enemy of Christ, is no excuse for unchristian feelings toward him. Knowing what his views are-knowing, also, that they fail in his case to produce good fruit-we may have no confidence in his professions. Still this will not justify us in conVOL. VI.

68

ducting the controversy with him in an unchristian spirit. It is rather in such a case the more necessary, for the honor of our own better faith, that we should avoid giving just cause of prejudice by any breach of the Christian law of controversy.

The law of Christ, in respect to controversy, may be learned from his own example, and from the precepts of his word. His example is a safe guide. He was often, during his ministry, in controversy with the most unreasonable men. But in no instance do we find him resort to sophistry in defense and advocacy of the truth. He never seeks to silence an adversary by appeals to popular hatred. He never indulges in ridicule. He never misrepresents the opinions of others; never puts a false construction on their conduct; is never guilty of deceit. Though he could not be deterred by fear from uttering the truth, he could not even speak the truth for the pleasure of inflicting pain by it. He came into the world on an errand of love, not to the righteous, but to the wicked; not to friends, but to enemies; and their opposition to him, even to the shedding of his blood, never damped in the least the ardor of his charity. In this spirit only-the spirit of love-is it lawful for us to assume in the church the work of controversy. In this spirit of Christ we should imitate the example of Christ. We should hesitate to employ, in defense of his cause, any weapon which he, in his integrity or wisdom, refrained from using. So far as his example has force as a law to us, the path of duty is plain. But he has made it still plainer in his word. He tells us, by his Apostle, 2 Tim. 2: 24-26, that "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all men ; apt to teach; patient; in meekness instructing them that oppose them. selves, if God will peradventure give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." What a dif