Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-05-31
PRRSBYTERIANISM.
The Old School and the New-DT.
EreckInrldge AssaiIs the Proposed
Basis Of Union, .-.. -Fl

IL BJD 4
.. ....- .r v ..l.
The Old School and the New-Dr.
EBreck kinridge Assails the Proposed
Basis Of Union. ..+ ~
AT the General Assembly Of the Old
School Presbyterian Church, at Albany,
N. Y, on TuesdAy last, the suhiect Of re-
nnion being under dise0sion, Rev. r. J.
Breckenridge occupied the floor, in an ar.
gument against H. The following is one
Of his objections If 4f'-.
The Doctor then opened the Assetnbly's
Digest, revised edition, page 6S5, and read,
As regards doctrinep The argument
Of the delegates, and'7of the New School
brethren, now that Bothdhe Old aud New
School are one in doctrine, and differ only
in Interpretation OF doctrine" And here
the New School claim the right and liberty
to explain and interpret doctrine as they
have been wont to do during the last thirty
years Now, the question of doctrine in
dispute to-day, in greater or less degree,
is precisely of the same nature, and in
reference to the same specific points, that
il was in 1887. The New School claimed
then just what they claim now, to-wii
Unity in doctrine, btR the right OF diversi
ty in Interpretation. The present Assem-
by had heard this very ground, not Only
suggested, but actually defended by both
DIR. Fisher and DR.. Darling. But what did
the Old School Church think Of such po-
sition az this PandOrais box that, in
years past, had let fly almost every misery
in the church az regards doctrine, and
would do so in years to come? 1t used
the following language; ave do bear our
solemn testimony against the right claimed
by many of Interpreting the doctrines of our
standards in asense different from the general
sense Of the Church for years past, whilst
they still continue in our communion. Ga
the contrary, we aver, that they who adopt
our standards, are bound by candor and
the simplest integrity TO hold them in
their obvious accepted sense" I'VE also
testify against the unchristian subterfuge
TO which some have recourse, when they
ayow general adherence to our standards
az system, while they deny doctrines es-
seniial to the system, or hold doctrines at
variance with the system" Now, what
ever the committee may say, it il not0-.
rious, and cannot be denied that there are
| men, and not few, distinguished men, in
| the other branch of the Church who do not
interpret the standards as the Old School
does. On the great and intensely impor-
tant and essential doctrines of original sin,
/ regeneration, election, atonement and such
| like, there is such a diversity of interpre-
/ tation as could only work discord in any
| church composed out of the two Presby-
| terian branches. There is no use in dis
| guising it. DIR. Breckenridge insisted, with
great power, that the present basis of the
/ joint committee never could have been
adopted by the purified church in 1887,
after its woful experience of the evils Of
/ the lax Interpretation. What avails it to
say that there is unity in doctrine, while
the Interpretation of doctrine is diverse
| and inharmonious He declared, "before
| God" that if the Church of 1887 could have
consented, for one moment, to such a loose
| basis as that OF the present Joint Commit
tee, the Presbyterian Church had never
been divided, and had remained one until
this day. As to all that Is said about the
standards being received in their historical
and Calvinistic sense, who is to Judge oI
what the historical and Calvinistic sense
Isl? Was net that substantially the very
ground of difference in reference to doc
trine ? Did not both claim that they were
historical and Calyinistic in 4d9etrine.
Whose history is it that we are TO follow
Theirs, or onrs2 Who is TO tell us wha
Calginism is ? They, or We? The whole
thing is superficial and unsatisfactory. The
old school church has passed through tha
controversy, and has settled the who'll
question, and declares, most solemnly tha
any who come into her communion mus
receive her standards in their D6piolS an,
accepted se,lse; i. e., the sense which an.
honest and intelligent man would put upol
, the woSds Of our book, and which the oil,
school church has illustrated in all he
, | theological and religious literature io
, thirty years. And now it is proposed sol
Z emnly thal past controversy in behalf c
the truth shall be ignored, no relerenc
made to them, the literature published b
our Board Scratched by the revisin
hand Of a committee, to be appointed b
the united church, and the law Of libera
. Interpretation introduced as the law of fl