same matter, in the same animal, will produce claws and not hoofs-this can hardly be understood, unless it is agreed, that the claws and the teeth have a pre-established harmony-on the one part prehension, on the other the rending of the prey; and if we add that all the other parts are equally co-ordinated, as Cuvier teaches, we must conclude that this had been prearranged, and we must say that nature in this case acted exactly as if it had wished to make a carnivorous animal.

The sequence of ideas would lead us here to examine the theory of Darwin; but that is a work which we have already done, and to which we refer the reader.* We will only add, that the system of Darwin, far from excluding the hypothesis. of final causes, seems to us to demand it imperiously, under penalty of making mere chance play an exorbitant part. We should here have to consider the formation of species as a work of art; and we need only apply to this case what we have already said of the formation of the individual; and then the work being much more complicated, since it concerns the totality of living beings, the argument would only be more strong. Moreover, this hypothesis itself rests on the analogy of art and nature, since it ascribes to nature a selection similar to the artificial selection of our builders; that is to say, we have here a real work of art. Here, again, human art would be seen to be but the prolongation and imitation of the natural method, and this method is the presentiment, or rather the type and model, of the former.

We cannot then escape the prepossession of the idea, that there is an art in nature; but, every art supposes an artist. Whether this artist be, as Aristotle supposed, nature herself, or whether it be exterior and superior to nature; whether it act by instinct, and, so to speak, by inspiration, or whether it act with precision and according to a preconceived plan—here is a new problem; this is a new order of research for metaphysicians, the solution of which supposes other conditions than the preceding. Whatever be the solution given to the problem, the artistic method in nature is just as evident as in the case of human works; on this common ground theism and pantheism can and ought to come to an understanding against materialism, and they have a common interest.

* See the Revue of Dec. 15, 1863.

As to choosing between these two hypotheses, that of a primordial instinct inherent in nature, or that of a supreme thought superior to nature, let us not forget that Aristotle. while advocating the former, at the same time joined the second with it; for while he ascribed to nature a secret and interior art, incapable of deliberation and reflection, he nevertheless held, that the mysterious action of the supreme thought moved, and even molded, this artistic instinct of nature; it was a blind impulse, without question and without consciousness, but yet determined by the sovereign cause and the irresistible attraction of "the good," which drew nature to ascend from form to form, from being to being, up to that supreme good, by creating progressively at each degree of the scale the means of which it had need, that it might ascend higher. Likewise in the teaching of Leibnitz, the creation of the universe by a supreme cause does not exclude second causes, which, obeying a sort of instinct and obscure tendency, seek for ends by appropriate means. The instinct of nature and supreme Providence are then not in contradiction, and ought to be reconciled in a higher doctrine. As to those who sacrifice absolutely one of these causes, and suppress intelligence in the supreme being in the interest of instinct, we can not see what advantage they can find, from the scientific point of view. in discarding a cause which is clearly known to us, and substituting for it another which is but a word. Instinct is really only a hidden quality, the symbol of a void conception which baffles our minds. All who have tried to elucidate this conception have referred it either to mechanism or to intelligence. The blind mechanism of the elements being discarded by common consent, intelligence remains the only known cause to which we can ascribe the art in nature, imagination itself being but a form or degree of intelligence. Does this imply that the cause of causes has an intelligence like our own? Does it imply that we are authorized to affirm that there is nothing beyond intelligence, and that the great artist must, in the creation of his works, obey laws of which we can not form any idea? Many metaphysicians have thought the contrary, and have supposed in God a series of perfections surpassing each other, without allowing that any analogy can represent them to us in ourselves. Perhaps the supreme rea

son of the order of nature is to be found in this last and unfathomable depth, which every theology supposes in the background of its mysteries. All that we can say is, that the most analogous cause which we can compare with the supreme cause is intelligence. The art of nature proceeds then from a cause, which is at least an intelligence, if it be not something more.

Art. V. THE ECCLESIASTICAL DISRUPTION OF 1861.

By R. L. STANTON, D.D., Cincinnati, Ohio.

The

THIS title is intended to designate the division of the Presbyterian Church in the United States into two bodies, now known, in the popular mind, as the Northern and Southern Presbyterian Churches. Previous to our late civil war they were one body, under one General Assembly (O. S.) division was consummated, on the part of the Southern Church, in December, 1861, by the organization of a separate General Assembly. It was not, however, fully recognized and accepted by the Northern Church until 1868, when the General Assembly of that year dropped from its roll the synods, presbyteries, ministers, and churches, which had withdrawn from it in the Southern States seven years before. During the war the Old and New School Churches of the South became united in one body under the Southern General Assembly. The negotiations, which had been pending since 1866, for the reunion of the Old and New School churches of the North, having been successful, the first reunion General Assembly was held in the year 1870. This Assembly made overtures to the General Assembly of the Southern Church for friendly relations with that body. Similar overtures, from time to time, have since been made, but with no favorable result.

It is not the object of this paper to discuss the question of "fraternal relations" between the Northern and Southern Churches, but rather to consider the disruption of the church,

which occurred in 1861, to examine some of the principles announced in its defense, and to consider the causes which led thereto. A chief reason, however, for doing this, is the light thus shed upon the conditions required by the Southern Church in order to such relations.* That which will form the basis of this discussion is the official document, entitled an Address of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, to all the Churches of. Jesus Christ throughout the Earth, unanimously adopted at their Sessions, in Augusta, Georgia, December, 1861. This Address is always referred to by the leading men of the Southern Church as setting forth the principles on which they stand, and by which they desire the Southern Church to be judged. The Southern General Assembly, of 1865, says: "Four years ago we were constrained to organize a separate Assembly. This was done because of an attempt by a part of the church to impose a yoke upon our consciences, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. Our testimony upon this, and other points of great interest, is before the Christian churches of the world, in the Address made to them by the General Assembly of 1861." By the "yoke" here mentioned, is meant the action of the General Assembly at Philadelphia, in May, 1861, upon the state of the country. Referring to the subject of slavery, the Southern General Assembly, of 1865, again says: "The Address of our General Assembly, before referred to (1861), contains the only full, unambiguous, deliberate, and authoritative exposition of our views in regard to this matter. We here affirm its whole doctrine to be that of Scripture and reason. It is the old doc

Our only reason for placing the important facts contained in this able article upon our pages, is their bearing on this very subject of "fraternal correspondence" with the Southern Church, and the conditions demanded for it. In themselves considered, we would much prefer that they should be left to oblivion, as respects the Northern Church, much as in different forms they still obtrude themselves, directly or indirectly, in the publications of our Southern brethren. But so long as honored brethren of our own church still deem it for edification to urge movements for fraternal correspondence, upon the basis of some retractions or confessions on our part in regard to alleged political, or otherwise injurious, declarations, by our assemblies in the past, with no equivalent acknowledgment on the other side-if, indeed, such acknowledgments on either side are in place at all-we think this article must satisfy all that such a procedure would involve implications alike false and mischievous.— EDITORS.

trine of the church, and the only one which keeps its foundations secure."

The Address of 1861 is thus officially proclaimed to be of the highest. authority upon the questions it presents. Its specific object is to vindicate the disruption of the church. Its language on this point is as follows: "The church, in these seceded States, presents now the spectacle of a separate and independent and complete organization, under the style and title of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America. In thus taking its place among sister churches of this and other countries, it seems proper that it should set forth the causes which have impelled it to separate from the church of the North, and to indicate a general view of the course which it feels it incumbent upon it to pursue in the new circumstances in which it is placed. We should be sorry to be regarded by our brethren in any part of the world as guilty of schism. We are not conscious of any purpose to rend the body of Christ." There are two distinct branches of the subject which call for separate consideration. One is historical, and concerns the causes of the disruption. The other involves fundamental principles, which enter into the vital elements of our ecclesiastical life. It will be the natural order to take up the historical question first.

I.

In the opening sentences of this Address, the separation of the Southern Church from the Northern is spoken of as purely voluntary. It says, that "the Presbyteries and Synods in the Confederate States" have "renounced the jurisdiction" of the Northern Assembly, "and dissolved the ties which bound them, ecclesiastically, with their brethren of the North." As "this act of separation left them without any formal union among themselves," they proceeded to organize an Assembly "upon the model of the one whose authority they had just relinquished."

But although this step was voluntary, the Address pleads the action of the Northern Assembly, in May, 1861, as the reason -certainly the occasion--which impelled to the separation. We ask special attention to its language on this point. It says: "The first thing which roused our presbyteries to look the question of separation seriously in the face, was the course of the Assembly