The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-03-18

Holy Ghost, sanctlhcatlon, progressive mere
and completed hereafter, and endless life in
Christ, we equally confess and believe. With
all the diversities of the imperfect and jarring
stantial accord in that which makes the unison
and melody of the one language of heaven.
eve have studied this statement in no par
tial or bypercriical spirit, and we think every
intelligent Old School man will agree with us
that it is utterly inadequate to the end for
which it was written. The author might as
well have told us we can all agree in the Apes
ties Creed. While this statement includes
many blessed and glorious truths which never
were disputed by any evangelical body, he
omits. as non essentials. the very points about
which Old and New School Presbyterians have
contended from the beginning and do still
contend. We venture to say Paul, Augustine,
and Calvin would not know their grand old sys-
TEN in this attenuated form. Under the pres
sure of this reunion argument the vital sub
stance of the Reformed Faith embodied in our
Confession and Catechsms, is reduced to q
very small residuun,, a mere homeopathic
dose which almost any one could swallow. In
one respect the doctors experiment Is emil
nently successful We cannot object to any
thing he saws. Neither. we think, could any
intelligent Methodist With few 'theologi-
cal techncalities' and 'philosopbic explana-
TONS which, let it be remembered, ourauthor
does not repudiate for himself, nor deny to us
as a private right, but rejects merely as part OF
the Basis of union-with few OF these,
held IN reserve for private use, the common
Confession, on which he thinks VIC ought 10
unite, would pass muster dny1heTe among
evangelical Christians. Let him, in his own
MINI, modify that sentence about personal
election ana snal perseverance with little
technicalty or phioseiphz about foreseeH (dith
and good tcOrlts and theis1ls not an Arminian
in the land who would refuse a suDstantiaT des-
cord 10 what DR.. Smi b thinks makes the
unison and melody Of tie one language IN
heaven.
After presenting number of considerations
to show the difference between the views held
in the two bodies, he quotes the remarkable
language used by an able writer in recent
review in the american Presbyterian, of Prof
A. A. Hodges work on the Atonement, In
which he speaks thus:
1--WE think the whole Princetonian system.
as he exhibits it, begipning with the federal
headship of Adam, and continuing with the
federal headship of Christ over his elect peo-
pie, implicated and jnwoven with the doctrine
of the DEGREES and the inability OF man, is as
dark and remorseless a system as ever was
brooded in the soul Of the most pitiless Hege-
lan Nor can anything which he says. or adj
mts, or argues, relieve IL of that offence to God
and to man; that contradiction of reason and of
Scripture; that grief to the tender heart of
the Christian, and that scandal of high Cal
vinism, LIMITED AToNEMENT. We think
we may Justly charge such theorists with Ra'
- a1otha ,hair ha-
cries with complete garniture OF Scripture
passages.
DR.. Van Dyke pertinently asks if this is the
light in which they regard Old School Theol-
ogy, how can they consistently propose to
unite with, or tolerate those whom they be.
lieve to hold it? And twill Old School men
recognize, as sound in the faith, those who
denounce our cherished doctrines as remorse-
less, dark, scandaous, rationalistic-an offence
to God and to man? Can re union be con.
summated between such parties, without a
weak and wicked compromise OF principle on
one side or the other?
We do not impeach the honesty of men who
hold the New School views, and yet profess
their adherence to our standards We only
say they adopt method of Interpretation,
which will inevitably produce strife and confu-
sion in the re united Church. This would be
the result, if there ,0ere no questions now in
dispute between US But the truth is, the old
controversies are still unsettled. They cannot
be decided by denunciation on either side.
Neither can they be covered up, and put out
of sight, mattersfoot worth conteuding for.
With all the talk about mutual liberation OF
non essential differences, it is manifest that
neither party is willing to ignore their view
Of these differences, or euen to keep silent
about them. Old School men conscientiously
believe that the doctrines which the othei
branch reject and denounce in such unmeas
ured terms, are an integral part of our Con
fession of Faith. They are not Princetoniar
peculiarities,. The Professors in that Seminary
did not invent them. They are imbedded in
all the Reformed creeds, as we are prepared
to prove. They are written all over the liter
| allure Of the Reformation, so lar as our Church
has ever recognized it as Orthodox. They
are enshrined in the theological monument
our Board Of Publication has been thirty years
building, and which we dare not overthrow or
deface And they are craven upon imperish-
able tablets by the grace which has led some
OF US (haud inerpe,tus loQuor) through the
mists of mans innate convictions, and the
cavils of mans common sense, to that serene
atmosphere where the soul believes every word
OF God, simply because he says 1t. Ii New
School men owe no allegiance to these doc
trines, we are sorry for it. And sorry we are
for the dark prospect before the Plan of Re-
union; for how can two walk together except
they be agreed. II. j. v.