The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-03-18
Presbyterian Reunion. No. Y.


creased strength and efficiency, DR.. Van Dyke
says it proves too much
eve cannot logically restrict its applica-
ton to Old and New School Presbyterlans.
Consistency compels us to apply it to all other
denominations, whom we recognize as Chris
tan, and with whom we have common inter-
est as opposed to the enemies OF Christianity.
What saving OF men and money-what de-
lightful picture of Christian cbarity-what an
increase in the aggressive force of the Church;
il all Protestant and Evangelical sects would
first consent to unite under one banner, and
move forward under one grand organization, to
the conquest of the land and of the world !!
Methodists and Presbyterans, to say nothing
now of other denominations, have their little
struggling churches, in close proximity, in al
most every town and village from the Atlantic
to the Pacific coast. These denominations re-
cognize each other as Christians. 1t would be
easy to draw up simple and comprehensive
statement of doctrine, like the Apostles Greed,
in which we could all cordially unite. We ac-
knowledge the validity Of the ministry and the
| ordinances in our respective Churches; and,
where the spirit of Christ prevails to any good
degree, we extend to each other the courtesles
of good neighbors, and the charities OF our
common Christianity.
Now, why, in the language of an eloquent
advocate Of Presbyterian re union, why may
we not forget or tolerate our non-essential dlf-
ferences, and rise to the full stature of our
work.? If to quote again the language
of the same advocate, it is not in harmony
with the spirit of the nineteenth century, with
the true spirit of American Presbyterianism,
nor with the split of Christianity for us to
adhere to the narrow and partial standard OF
orthodoxy, on which Old School Presbyterians
have hitherto stood, it will be very difficult for
us to restrain the application of this reasoning
within the narrow limits of any sect or school
of theology. The spirit of the nineteenth
century, which, we are told, is eminenty the
spirit of union, is not to be pent up within the
narrow limits of any one denomination, nor
bound by the fetfers of any one creed.
g But what would any wise man reply TO the
| question, Why MAY not forget our nom
essential differences, as applied to proposed
union between Presbyterians and Methodlsts
| Doubtless, his answer would be twofold. He
would deny that these differences are non
essential; and he would observe that, whether
they are essential or not in themselves, expe-
rience has proved that they are sufficiently i'm
portant in the estimation of the parties con-
cerned to preclude their harmonious working
together And this is just our answer to the
above question, as applied to the proposed re.
union of Old and New School Presbyterians. y
The writer next notices the opinion preva-
lent among those who have never investigated
the question, that there are no theological diff
ferences worth naming in the way Of re-
union:
"The inference is, therefore, that there is
no difficulty in the way of reunion, except the
prejudces of some old men who were in the
original quarrel, and wish to keep up the divi-
sion to crafty their own feelings. The younger
men-the men who have come into the minis
try since the division, and are free from the
passions which are supposed still to possess and
blind the perceptions of those old ecclesiasti
cal warriors, who must soon be gathered to
their fathers-these younger men, with broad
err views and kindlier spirit, will bury the
theological Ratchet, and smoke the pipe Of
peace, and agree to disagree, where Others
have disagreed and quarrelled. Such is the
substance Of the popular argument for re-
union
To test the little worth of this view Dr. Van
Dyke selects Dr. Henry B. Smith, Professor Of
Theology in the Union Theological Seminary,
New York, as the most prominent exponent Of
the theology of the ''other branch" He
quotes Professor Smiths views as presented in
a recent pamphlet:
sour authors position is thus defined by
himself On the points of doctrinal belief
then, it is our conviction that the two School:
are substantially agreed, and can unite in a
common confession. Apart from theological
technicalities and philosophical explanations,
we are one in accepting that grand old system
of faith-Pauline, Augustinian, and Re-
formed-wheh has been the vital substance
aud stay OF the Church in its main conflicts
with error and unbelet.' And then follows o
statement Of what, in his Judgment this grand
old system embraces-a statement made with
the avowed intention OF proving that aside
from the technicalities and explanations of q
theological and philosophic kind, care one in
our doctrina views, and caa unite in common
confession. Omitting what is said concerning
the Trinity, the person of Christ, and the works
has never been any dispute among us, we in.
vite particular attention to the following sum
mary, in which it may fairly be assumed that
New School orthodoxy is set forth to the very
best advantage One who pleads SO heartily
for re union, and who is commonly understood
to be opposed to extreme New School views,
would not omit from such a statement any
thing calculated to promote his cherished OBJ
ject.
"'We will concede all we can, says oul
author, but concessions have their limits.
Here, then is the utmost concession we need
expect from the other branch in regard to doc.
trine:
1--WE also confess the essential doctrines,
which make the Distinguishing and vital sab
stance of the Reformed system-original sin,
as derived from Adam, since we sinned in him
and fell with him in his first transgression; to.
tai depravity, which makes us aversc to all
good, and unable, Of ourselves, to repent and
believe-yet so that this inability is moral,
rooted also in our personal responsibility, and
stricken with our own, and not merely for
eign guilt; the atoning work of our Lord, not
symbolical and governmental only, but also a
proper sacrifice for sin, and thus a satisfaction
to the divine justice as well as a revelation OF
the divine love; the covenant of redemption,
wherein this atonement was made so general as
to be sufficient for ALL and to be offered unto
all, and so particular as to be effectualy ap-
piled in the salvation of believers; personal
election unto everlasting life, and the final per-
severance of those who are effectually called.
justification only by the righteousness OF
Christ, regeneration only by the power of the