The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1857-10-03
D0CFRINAL DIFFERENCES.

culuCn Out lew are l"Iu'''"' WIN VliV wv
trina points in controversy between the Old
School aud the New, for the simple reason
that since the disruption of IS, they have
been scarcely noticed in any Of our religious
journals. Occasionally when articles have
appeared in adverse prints severely reflect
ing upon the proceedings of the Assembly
in that memorable era, they have been
briefly answered, and the subjects dismissed,
as they seemed to be, under the circum-
stances of the case, matters Of Improbable
controversy. Hence is it that many intelG-
gent members, especially in our branch OF
the church, are ready to confess their ig-
noranee of the causes which led to the dis
ruption. And it is very probable that moth
ing would have appeared in our columns,
on the subject, had it not been that the New
School Convention in this city has opened
the way, in which it can be done, without
Justly subjecting ourselves to the charge of
being actuated bya belligerent spirit. From
the tone of our paper anterior to the meet
mo Of the Convention, it must be obvious
that we ourselves were under the impress
sion that there was no real-yaGd obstacle
to reunion with majorit Hkof the New
School in the South, on account of doctrinal
differences. And we should have been ex-
eeedingly gretfed if the developments Of
that meeting had srengthened, rather than
weakened hatimpression. But while num-
Der Of the members profeSsed, and no doubt
honestly believed, that they conceded in doc
trine with the Old School, there was nothing
distinctive in any of their utterances, from
which it could be known what was meant
by this general confession, or to what extent
they differed from their own brethren who
cave the clearest evidence that they retained
those very doctrines of the New School,
which we're the original and primary cause
of the disruption. Instead Of that, it was
more than intimated that there were no
differences among them but Sucn as existed
in the Old School, and no differences any
where that should operate as a bar to re-
union, save in the unwillingness of the Old
School to retract their former positions.
But while we think it right, and honora-
/ bIe and Christian to make amends for all
the wrong we may have done, we cannot
retract the testimony which was borne
against the doctrinal errors of the New
School as held at the time referred to by
prominent members of the party, without
doing violence both to the truth and to om
own consciences. We cannot, for instance,
unite with Mr.. Barnes in denying the fede-
raj and representative character of ADAM
or in asserting as he did in his sermon on
the Way of Salvation, that 1.-the notion Of
imputing sin is an invention of modern
times"-that "Christ did not endure the
penalty of the law''-that 'the atonement
secured the salvation of no one"--that sit
was made equally for all" and that "if God,
requires more of men, in any sense, than
they are able to perform, then in the prac-
teal Judgment Of men, he Is unjust" Nor
can we unite with Drs. DufHeld, Beman and
many others in maintaining,
A L., 49,, ,,,t tbo oO,.oYopf hoo Il
or federal representative of his posterity.
,. That we have nothing to do with the
first sin of Adam
3. That it is not imputed to his posterity
4. That infants have no moral character
that there is no innate, inherent corrup-
ton in the souls of fallen men, but merely
sinful tendency.
.. That all sin consists in voluntary acts
and exercises.
6. That man in his fallen state is pos
sessed of entire ability to do whatever God
requires him to do, Independently of any
new power or ability impaired to him by the
gracious operations of the Holy Spirit.
:. That regeneration is the act of the
sinner, the Holy Spirit acting only mediate
|Iy in the way of moral suasion by the pre-
sentation of motives.
S. That Christ did not become the legal
substitute and surety of sinners.
8. That the atonement was made as much
for the nou-elect as for the elect-for all
alike without any reference to a peculiar
people.
That these positions were maintained by
prominent members of the New School party
can be abundantly substantiated by an APP
peal to their writings and speeches, and to
the works which received their unqualified
appreciation. We have not now the space
to take them up scriatiR, and show how con-
Trajectory they are to the teachings of our
Confession of Faith and Catechisms-those
doctrinal symbols which all alike professed
to adopt. But the history of error clearly
demonstrates that while the symbols of faith
are suffered to remain undisturbed, there
may still be palpable and wide departures
from the principles which they inculcate. 1t
has been so in the Continental churches
in the Church of England, and even among
Irish and Scotch PresbyteriauS-where I'M
der the shadow of an Orthodox creed, Ar
miniauism and plagiarism and Arianism
and Socinianism have extensively prevailed.