terian history it will be found to be something absolutely new in her policy to wish to compel the use of the Bible in her Public Schools. To take the taxes of citizens of other denominations, and of citizens who do not believe in any religion, or, at least, not in ours, to establish schools, and then by legislative acts cause our Bible, which is the "Religion of Protestants," according to Chillingworth and the whole Protestant world, to be used in those schools, contrary to the remonstrances of those citizen tax-payers, is just what I protest against, and declare it to be wholly antagonistic to any resolution, act or deliverance of the Presbyterian Church, and wholly against its institutions and spirit.".

In his exhibition of what he supposes to be the true doctrine, the Dr. takes the broad, startling positions-that our English "translation of the Holy Scriptures is just as much a sectarian book as the Articles of the Synod of Dort or of the Church of England"; and that Protestant Christianity is no part nor parcel of the common law-hence our Government knows no Bible, no Sabbath; an appeal to God is not even necessary to the validity of an oath.

At the earnest solicitation of members and friends of the Presbyterian Church, resident in this city, and in the interior of the State, who desire to see the character of the Church vindicated, and at the solicitation of the friends of the Bible in the schools generally, these pages appear. They were written hastily for the columns of the Pacific and California Christian Advocate, and now appear as when first issued. I say this for the sake of my friends, and not to deprecate criticism, for that concerns me not. To advocate laws which will interfere with Sabbath-theatres and public gardens and open stores, and which will throw the Bible open to all, is not likely to meet with popular favor at the beginning; but in the end it will be approved, for God has decreed that the land shall enjoy her Sabbaths, and that His Word shall have free course. With Him I leave the issue.

W. C. ANDERSON.

NOTES ON DR. SCOTT'S

BIBLE AND POLITICS.

MR. EDITOR:-I propose in a few, and but a few numbers, to examine such parts of Dr. Scott's pamphlet, entitled "The Bible and Politics," as in my judgment have any direct bearing on the great moral controversy, now fairly inaugurated on this coast. The points at issue are not "questions and strifes of words;" not debates about mere constructions of constitutional and statute law; not harmless differences of opinion on non-essentials; but, if I am not wholly mistaken, they are questions upon the right decision of which depends the future of California, both as it respects her civil and religious institutions. The expressions of "high personal respect" for me which Dr. Scott makes, I most cordially reciprocate; and if, in the progress of these numbers, I inadvertently fall into personalities, he will not regret it more than I.

Before we enter upon the consideration of the Doctor's so-called argument, the ground must be cleared off a little; and I regret that this ungracious task is likely to take up the whole of this number. Like my Rev. Brother, "I do earnestly covet the sympathy and approbation of God's people ;" and hence I cannot enter upon this examination under the grievous imputations of a slanderer and persecutor of Dr. Scott. To explain my meaning: In assigning reasons for publishing his Tractate, the Dr. presents himself before the public as a persecuted man, and under that amiable character, appeals to their sympathies-yea, he is even forced to write in self-defense! Thus he says, "This publication is not of my own seeking." He alleges that it has been forced upon him by the misrepresentations of certain parties. In proof of this allegation, he quotes from two leading religious journals; from one secular print; from one of

my printed sermons; from words spoken by me in debate in an ecclesiastical court, and from an action of the Presbytery of California, which he styles "as ecclesiastical thunder poured upon my ears." Of these several sayings, and doings, and persons, he thus speaks: "These odious flings, inuendoes, misrepresentations and actual falsehoods"-"It always betrays the weakness of a man's cause * * or the maliciousness of his heart for him to undertake to overturn argument by personal flings "-" For the writers of such abusive personal flings and epithets, I can have no other feeling than that of pity." "I found myself not only proscribed for the opinions uttered, but for months, stereotyped and new misrepresentations of my sentiments were widely circulated ** and more than all, ecclesiastical thunder was actually poured upon my ears." "For these sentiments," (referring to his sermon published in the Times,) "Calvary Presbyterian Church was to be broken down, and its pastor virtually banished. Already were the spoils divided, and speculations indulged as to what other churches would be built up out of the ruins."

Now let it be noted, that these are grave charges to be preferred by one minister of the Lord Jesus, against three other ministers, and one of them a co-presbyter with himself, and for whom he says, on the same page, "I have the highest personal respect." If these charges be true, the parties implicated deserve the severest rebuke; and more especially so, if all this effort, by writing and preaching, to get God's word into the schools, and to obtain a law for the better observance of His Sabbaths, was a mere hypocritical pretense, under cover of which Dr. Scott was to be persecuted and Calvary Church broken down.

The occasion of this alleged persecution, the Dr. tells us, was the publication of an extract from one of his sermons in the San Francisco Times, and he leads us to infer, that in consequence of this published extract of his, the pulpits of the city and State took up the subject of the "Bible in the schools." Thus on page 11, he says: "The pulpits of the city and of the State, have taken up the subject to some extent-how extensively, I am not precisely informed, but in many of the interior towns the pulpits have been thus employed; and the Rev. Drs. Anderson and Peck of this city, for whom I have the highest personal respect, have at least preached seven Sunday evening discourses on the subject." I humbly submit that the pulpits of the "interior towns," and those of Drs. Peck and Anderson could not be better" employed," especially in a State, in the public schools of which, God's Bible is not found.

Now it so happens, that those Bible sermons of mine were a part of a series on the cardinal doctrines of our holy religion, which was commenced on the 17th October last. Having, in that series, found that man's chief end was to glorify God and enjoy Him forever-and having found that

God had given him a rule by which he might secure that end, and having finished the evidence for the genuineness, authenticity, and, indeed, Divine authority of the sacred Scriptures, and having found them to be, not merely "King James' Bible," "a sectarian book," "gotten up for an avowedly sectarian purpose," as Dr. Scott says, but the very word of the Living God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, I undertook to show the vital importance of placing this infallible rule of life in the hands of the children in our California schools; and so far were these discourses from being designed to persecnte Dr. S., so far from being called forth by his article in the Times, two of the four were delivered before that article appeared! I am free to declare that at the beginning of the delivery of those discourses, the idea of Dr. S. never crossed my mind. I was simply discharging a great duty which I owed to God and my country. The fact must be borne in mind, that my first lecture was announced in the city papers before the Rev. Dr. came out in his pulpit on the subject, and I must admit, that his selection of that particular time, was by me regarded as aggressive-as throwing down the gauntlet; as a warning to all the friends of the Bible movement to beware, for an opponent was in the field. So much for this part of the persecution.

66

With respect to the quotation from my sermon, which he places in his list of "inuendos, flings, and absolute falsehoods," let me say that it had no reference to him—was not meant for him. The quotation is, "and because the State has no right to make itself a party in a sectarian and infidel association, which has for its sole object the dishonoring of the Word of God, and the changing the ways of our forefathers for more than two hundred years." I was speaking of the duty of the State. All through the discourses, the Romish church, and its great Ajax, Bishop Hughes, were spoken of as the sectarian party" by whom this whole war against the Bible had been gotten up. The "infidel" part of the association, was represented as composed of men, who disbelieved the Bible, and consequently had united their forces with Rome for its removal from the schools. These were the parties to whom that extract referred. It never, for one moment, occurred to me, that Dr. Scott would apply to himself, words spoken against such an association. He is neither & Papist, nor an Infidel; nor did I think of him when that sentence was written and uttered! If Dr. Scott is conscious that his sentiments and wishes on this particular question, are in harmony with that anti-Bible, anti-Sabbath alliance, and if his conscience makes application to himself, which I never meant, he must accuse conscience, not me. So much for this part of the dire persecution.

The impression which the whole of the persecution part of this extraordinary pamphlet leaves on the reader's mind, is, that the parties who

schools, and of Sabbath laws.

"

oppose Dr. Scott's views are his personal enemies, and desire to destroy his influence. This impression is not truc, the parties are not his enemies. I have conversed with them all, Dr. Peck, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Warren, and I have never heard one of these gentlemen utter an unkind syllable about him. True, we have all deplored the fact, that Dr. Scott is against us, in the great struggle in which the Church on the Pacific coast is engaged with the Man of sin, and with other enemies of the Bible in Amid many discouragements, far away from the old church at home, and in my own case, I have sometimes thought, far away even from its sympathies, a few of us are toiling in this 'Bible-school work." We are laying the foundations on which the future State and Church of God are to be reared; and we cannot, we dare not, lay a foundation of which the Bible forms no part. We are laboring and praying that both the State and the church may be "built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." When, amid these toils, an esteemed, influential minister of Jesus, one who ought, as we believe, to be a co-worker with us, tells us, as Dr. Scott does, 'That the government has no Bible-does not profess to believe in any”—“that the Koran, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Douay version, the holy books of the Hindoos, are as much recognized in the administration of an oath as our Protestant (?) Bible.”—When he tells us that "our Legislators have just as much right to take the people's money to buy their coats with, as to pay a chaplain to say prayers for them "--when he tells us that our English Bible "is a sectarian book of human origin, just this and nothing else," and when, with an air of triumph, he asks what Bible we wish put into the schools; "agree among yourselves, gentleman, whether it is King James' translation that is to be used, or some other." In short, when Dr. Scott arrays himself in armor -places himself at the head of this fearful crusade against, what we conscientiously believe to be God's truth, and gives to the movement character, and strength, and power, we all mourn over it, but we do not traduce him, we do not persecute him, we do not hate him. I repeat that a personal reflection against him has never been made in my presence by any one of these so called enemies of his.

And as to the grievous charges that, "for these sentiments Calvary Church was to be broken down, its pastor virtually banished, the spoils divided, and other churches built up out of its ruins," I have only to say, that the first hint of it reached me through his Tractate, as he calls it— nor have I found a single being of my acquaintance, man, woman, or child who ever heard it from any other source than the aforesaid Tractate. do not, for a moment, question his veracity, but it does seem to me that be must have some unscrupulous informers. If such a plan was ever

I