The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-04-17
Commissioners to the sensral Assembly.
REPLY TO REV. DIR. VAN DYKE.

The precise point in hand must be kept
distinctly in mind. DR.. Van Dyke asserts
that when his Assembly, in 1870, "sent
committee to the Assembly at Louisville, ask.
ing for conference, with a view to the set
element of existing difficulties, the Southern
Assembly responded with accusations as bad,
and worse than any the Northern Assembly
had ever preferred against them
We have denied the correctness of this
assertion, and have brought forward in re-
ply, (1.) the fact that in that very Gre
Spouse, as well as at times in years pre-
vious, our Assembly explicitly diaclaimed all
intention to do anything of that kind
e That it was not volunteer paper, but
in reply to an overture We did not, there
fore, manufacture an occasion for that utter
snce. And e that what was expressed
concerning the Southern Assembly cannot
be Justly regarded as an ecclesiastical Of
fence since it contains no more than has been
repeatedly expressed in protests now on re-
cord presented 5y members of their own AS
semblies and SynOds upon various occasions.
Here also is summary Of the proof by
which this is established. Our Assembly said
of theirs, in the first plaee-that before their
union) both wings did fatally cOmplioate
themselves with ths State in political utter
s-ces deliberately pronounced year sitter
year, and which, in our judgment, were sad
betrayal of the cause and kingdom of our
common Lord and Head" and that they
ought "by public proclamation Of the truth
to place the crown once more upon the head
of Jesus Christ, the alone King of Zion"
But in regard to that very point what do
We hear from DE-. Van Dyke himself in the
Synod of New Jersey? He offers resolutions
declaring that his Assembly had "virtually
exerted its influence in support of that polit
zeal party which has selected the President
for its candidate" and other similar express
siors.
Again we fad the venerable DR.. Hodge,
With more than fifty other members, protest
irg in 1861, against the adoption Of the
Spring resolutions. They say that in thus
deciding political question, and in making
that decision practically condition of mem
bership to the Church, the said Assembly had
'viOlatsd the Constellation of the Church, and
'4surpea the Prerogative offs Divine Master.
Now, can Dr.. Vsn Dyke or any one else,
show wherein the expressions used on this
point by cur Assembly differ to the amount
of straw's weighs from those employed by
himself and others 10 his Church?
II TIE second place our Assembly said
concerning their union (to which they had
referred in their overture sent to us) that
The united Assembly stands of necessity,
upon an allowed latitude of Interpretation OF
the standards, and must come at length to
embrace nearly all shades of doctrinal belief"
Now We have shown that not few months
before the meeting Of his Assembly in 1868,
DR.. Van Dixie wrote a series of articles in
vehement opposition to it. 1t is true they
w,re written with a apscial opposition to the
basis then proposed, but it is also true that
many, if not mos., Of the reasons for opposi
ton under that form apply to it under any |
form.
Ia addition to this We fad that fly eight
members, entered an energetic protest against
the action of their Assembly in 1868. Such
names as Drs. Charles Hodge, A. A Hodge, |
E. P. Humphrey, r ]. Breckenridge, j c.
Backus, Samuel Fisher, and J. NJ. Shields,
are upon this psper, In protesting against
the terms Of union in the paper adopted, they
say:
because it virtually unse:tles cur stan.
dards of doctrine. That standard ceases to
be the system of doctrine contained in our
Confession, but tia; system as interpreted by
the New School Church in their past his
tory" eve only say that they regard, as