The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-03-04

more in the way of Offering terms of union to
the other Assembly? | reply, certainly not
now. The annexation of the New School
Assembly to the Presbyterian Church is, at
present, entirely out of the question. First.
Because doctrinal variations deemed by us i'm
portant are still predominant in the New
School Assembly Secondly. Because the
Congregational element is still allowed to hold
sway in that body, large number of churches
on its roll being still Congregational churches.
~ And filthy. Because the sum total
of the causes which constitute New Schoolism
stamp their variations upon ministerial char
acter with such power, as to render general &C.
clesiastical sympathy and cooperation at pres
ent impracticable. Having given the above
reasons for the opinion that organic reunion
was improbable ten years ago, he proceeds
to show that the prospect of such an event In
the future "is so remote, as to be unapprecia-
Bile and almost indefinitely hopeless" Among
other reasons for this opinion he assigns the
following: "That the New School Assembly
has continued to boast of the liberality Of its
views, and of its American spirit, as contradis-
tinguished from Old School Presbyterianism,
and has not shown disposition to repent of
It's former Positions and to return to the an
cient faith and order of the Church.
Such is DR.. Van Rensselaer's testimony,
given in the pulpit of the First Presbyterian
church of New Orleans, in the presence of the
General Assembly, in the year 1858, revised in
the privacy of his last sickness in 1860, and
published by our Board in 1861.
But this is not all of his testimony. A large
part of the volume before US is filled with a
series of papers on "The Founders, Principles,
and Acts of the Presbyterian Church. One
of these papers, or chapters, is headed thus:
"The Doctrinal Errors of the New School. I"
We should be glad to transcribe the whole of
this chapter, that all our readers might judge
for themselves of its contents. But our space
will allow US to give no more than brief sum-
mary. He shows, first, that ''the origin Of
these dvsss;aal eEIals.-is--unasabsedty 10 be
traced to the East" He then indicates what
these errors are under nine specific heads, re-
ferring the reader for more full discussion to
the Princeton Rerie,o and to the works of DR..
James Wood, DR.. Lewis Cheeseman, and DR..
Nathan L. Rice. In the next place, he
"glances at the history of the late trials for
heresy in the Presbyterian Church." After
this he raises the inquiry, which he modestly
says is OF some interest,"" viz ITO what
extent did the New School embrace these doc.
trinal errors
In answer to this inquiry, he enumerates the
leaders of the New School body-ot whom we
may observe that "the greater part remain
unto this present day, but some are fallen
asleep land tells us that "a few of these lead
ing men, as DR.. Richards and DR.. Fisher,
father of the gentleman with whom DR..
Hodge shook hands at the Philadelphia Con-
vention, were opposed to their extravagances;
but the greater part were carried away by these
winds of doctrine" The chapter concludes
with a succinct statement of what our author
calls some of the signs, which, apart from
direct argument on either side, go to confirm
the conviction that our New School brethren
have wandered into serious deviations from
Scriptural truth. " These signs, according to
Dr. Van Rensselaer,, are seven in number. II
will be sufficient for our purpose in this article
to quote three of them. 'Arother dark sign
is opposition to rigorous tests. The right of q
Presbyterian to examine members of other
Presbyteries applying for admission, was warm
ly resisted by our New School brethren gener.
ally. The Old School Presbyteries were com.
PEELED to fall back upon this reserved right OF
examination on account of suspicious theology
in divers quarters. When WaS an orthodox
man, from The days of Pelagius to Bushnell,
ever knoDa TO orOid an examination into his
dOctrinal behief?" Another adverse sign is
the characteristic nomenclature of the other
School. They adopt new phraseology, new
philosophical statements, new words, as well
as new things. They talk of American Pres
byterianism. Liberal Calvinism,' 'Gener-
Gus Presbyterianism. We American Pres
byterians being moderate men, &c. All this
looks as though there were some real differ
ence of views between the two bodies
1T is an incidental sign against New-school-
ism, that a large number of able and good men
honestly think that that body has connived at
grievous doctrinal error. Look at the Synod
of Philadelphia, which condemned Mr. Barnes
doctrines by vote of l42 to l6. Look at the
majorities in the Assemblies Of 1885 and 1887,
and the large minorities in other Assemblies,
who concurred in regarding these doctrna
errors as impairing the old foundations. I'm,
partial men will consider the opinion of such
divines as Drs Green, Alexander, Miller,
Baxter, Spring, Hodge, Junkin, Hoge, Phil
lips, Yeomans Cuyler, Engles, Elliott, Mus
grave, Fisk, Wilson, Breckenridge, Janeway
Plumer, McGill, Murray, &C., and worth
something in this controversy II is impossi.
Die to suppose that these ministers are all mis-
taken an their judgment, and that there is no
substantial difference of theological views"
We have made these extracts from DR.. Van
Rensselaers book, and italicized few en-
phatic sentences, not because we undertake
now either to affirm or to deny the correctness
of his testimony; but simply to remind our
readers that such testimony is recorded and
published Ly authority. 1t was first written by
the author for the pages of the Presbyterian
Magazine, which he edited, in answer to an
article in the New School Presbyterian Quar-.
terly Reviep, entitled, The Spirit of Ameri-
can Presbyterianism 1t was afterwards re-
yised by the author in his dying days. Only