The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-03-25
From the Presbyterian.
Presbyterian Reunion. No. vi.

umns OF the FreSbyte1 ian.
The writer first refers to the admonitory
fact that, although their last General Assem-
bly, spoke of the terms of agreement as the
finger of God pointing to the duty of union,
yet an overwhelming majority of the Presby-
teries have declared that the Basis reported
was utterly unsatisfactory. So again the Con.
vention in Philadelphia last fall gave a great
impulse to union and its basis was received
with acclamations Of applause, and from aught
that is known, may be commended by the
next Assembly and afterwards rejected by the
Presbyteries.
But in the meantime, presumptuous as
it may SEEM we take leave to say that, in our
Judgment, that amendment, so-called, is no
amendment at ALL but only an addition, which
darkens counsel by words without knowledge.
1t provides that the Westminster Confession
of Faith is to be received and adopted by the
high contracting parties sin it's proper histori.
col that ia the Cttl0iaisttc or reformed sense.
We mean no personal disrespect to any one,
when we say that this boasted cure.all for the
theological differences of the Old and New
School irresistibly associates itself in our mind
with patent universal plaster, which is war
ranted to heal all sores, but whose ingredients
are a profound secret to all but the maker -
We venture to affirm that not one in ten who
voted for it-amid the excitement of Con-
vention which. however good and pleasant in
its brotherly love, was neither organized nor
conducted in way appropriate to the discus
sion and settlement of creeds and doctrinal
bases-attached any definite idea to its Ian
guage. And Furthermore, we are very sure not
npa Of than, Ill coulH Main 70
ing to the apprehension of ordinary readers,
without utterly defeating the end its adoption
was supposed to accomplish. What door Of
controversy between the Old and New School
does it shut? What ranking sore does it
heal? What breach does it close up2 To say
that the Confession is to be received in the
Calvinistic or Reformed sense, is just to say
that each party is to receive it in the very same
way in which they have of,oGys pr0fessed to
receive it. What sane and honest man ever
supposed that it could be received in any other
sense7 You might as we'll say it is to be re.
ceived in the Protestant, or the scriptural, or
the religious sense.
"The open question, which no Joint Com
mittee or Pan Presbyterian Convention has
attempted to settle, but which will come up
TOR decision in every theological examination
in every Presbytery of the reunited Church,
is this-What is tn be regarded as the Calvin
istic or Reformed sense OF our standards upon
such cardinal doctrines as the nature and ex-
tent of the atonement, original sin, and human
inability? Then, as heretofore, the Old School
man will claim that he has the true Cavinistic
sense and the New School man with equal
zeal, because with equal sincerity, will claim
that he has it; and when Greek meets Greek,
then comes the tug of war This war will
not be made less certain, neither will its grim
visage be in any wise smoothed by the phrase
to which the words 'Calvinistic or Reformed
are attached, as synonymous and explanatory
The Joint Committee agreed that the two
bodies are TO receive the Confession 10 its tair
historic sense. The Philadelphia Convention
amends this by substituting the word proper
for fair, and adding the words Calvinistic or
s4zlax, We confess that, 20 our. apprehension,
this historic sense, whether fair or proper
is one Of those glittering platitudes which may
mean any thing or nothing. Ii it means any
thing, it signifies that the whole history of the
Old and New School controversy not only, but
Of all the controversies which have agitated
the Reformed Churches from the days of Cal
vim till the present time, is to be regarded as
part OF the basis of reunion. Historic Cal
vinism. must include the opinions of all pro-
fessed Cavinists whose history is recorded =
Looking at it in this light, this boosted offer
ing of peace seems to us like terrible engine
of war Even while we concede and recognize
the sincerity of its advocates, it looms up and
casts its dark shadows upon us instar months
1t is a a Trojan horse, which God restrain US
from bringing into the citadel Every honest
blow against its hollow sides reveals the fact
that it is filled with armed men"
DR.. Van Dyke then says Of DR.. Henry B.
Smith, that he distinctly assumes the posi-.
ton that the opinions of every theologian who
has professed to adopt the doctrinal symbols
of the Reformed churches, whether before or
after the Westminster Assembly, are to be re-.
garded as part of the historic sense of our
Confession, and that whatever differences have
actually existed between Calvinistic theolo-
gians, whose works have come down to ua, are
to be recognized in the re united church, as
consistent with profession of sincerity in the
adoption of our standards.
After long quotation from Dr. Smith,
showing that he takes this position, DR.. Van
Dyke says:
Nov. let our readers bear in mind the
precise position DR.. Smith undertakes to forti-
| fly by this array OF historic names. His posi-
ton, and the stronghold Of his whole argu-
ment, is that the differences now confessedly
existing between Old and New School Presby-
terians in regard to Imputation, Inability, and
definite Atonement have always been al
lowed in the Reformed churches; that the
differences are non essential, and that the re-
cognition of their non-esseatial character is
| indispensable to any plan of union which he
L otaDa . NN,n q
| he is explicit and reiterant, leaving nothing to
be desired by us on the score of candor. With
out this, he tells us, reunion is undesirable
and impossible. And to show that the Old
! School can consistently and hon0rably ignore
their clearly-de6ned views on these three great
doctrines or at least hold them in allegiance
for the sake of reunion, he makes the above
seemingly formidable array Of historic proofs.
Now Just here we take issue with hlm-Frst.
On the question of fact; and secondly, On the
applicability of the alleged facts to the case in
hand.
We fearlessly affirm that the characteristic
differences in the theology Of the Old and New
School, especially on the three doctrines above
referred to, have never been recognized as al
lowabe by the Presbyterian Church in the
limited States, nor by any other Reformed
church. since the days Of Calvin, except by
that one modern branch Of the Presbyterian
family which claims to be the root and off.
spring of American ideas in the nineteenth
century. Whether the Cumberland Presby-
terian body ought to be added to this excep.
tion. we do not know. 1t amounts to moth.
ing in this discussion, to affirm vaguely that
individuals in either body, hold the peculiar
views of the other. The essential fact is, that
while the New School have protected, defend
ed, and propagated their own peculiar views
of original sin, inability, and the atonement,
and at the same time tolerated the Old School
views on the same subject, the Old School
have never taught, or even officially tolerated