The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-04-17

consistent Win our standards, Iorms OF uoo'
triue which our branch of the Church has
officially, earnestly and constantly con-
demned.'
After mentioning certain Arminian and
Pelagian doctrines thus condemned, and sd-
hitting that the great body of New School
pen did Individually repudiate these errors,
the protest says
"But they are allowed by them as consis-
tent with the system of doctrine contained in
our Confession. This fact is notorious. 1t
is confessed and svowed." "The action OF
the Assembly, however intended, we regard
as virtual remuneration of our former status,
and as committing the Church, contrary to
the Constitution, which is and must continue
to be binding upon our cOnSciences, to recog-
nize as orthodox the errors which it has hith-
erto condemned
1t should also be borne in mind that 81
though the two Assemblies united protested
ly upon the basis of Z" the standards pure and
simple, yet each one passed aresolutiOn de
claring the sense in which it was done-eaeh
had its understanding of the transaction, and
these understandings were completely op
posed to one another. This fact is indispu-
table; and hence all that DR.. Van Dyke
himself has ever been able to say goes only
so far as to deny that "this reunited AS
sembly stands necessarily" Mark it: neces-
sarily upon an allowed latitudSin the inter-
probation of the standards of the Church,
such as must ultimately result in bringing in
all forms of doctrinal error"
DR.. Charles Hodge, however, thought
very differently. (See Princeton ReUieO Of
July, 1869 } The opinion of our Assembly
was the same as that of DR.. Hodge. But
whether right or wrong, the expression of it
was not an insult to the Northern Assembly (;
and that is sll we are here concerned with.
We have referred to the law of the Church
regulating protests-that as condition of
admitting them they must be COuched in
respectful language, and contain no offensive
reflections or insinuations against the major
ity Of the judicatory." But we have also
shown that in regard to both points in the
action of our Assembly, as referred to by
DR.. Van Dyke, the very same kind of re-
mark is found in protests from DR.. Van
Dyke himself and other members of their
own General Assemblies. If, then, the Ian
gusge of the Southern Assembly in 1870 is
offensive, the Northern Assembly has sd-
mitted just the same cOndemnstOry language
again and again in protests upon its own
records This brings the whole matter to
the precise point We are aiming at, which is
this: Those protests from their own men,
bers contain objections to the measure re-
ferred to, stated in very strong terms, ss
protests commonly do; but they do not con-
tain offensive accusations, in any proper
sense of that term. And if they do not,
neither does the language used by our As
sembly, which Dr.. Van D. Ike quoted at Chi
cago. Aud to compare it to the insulting
epithets hurled year after year at the South
ern Assembly, is simply perversiOn of Ian
gusge. We have heretofore set them forth
10 all their defOrmity, aad do Hosfcare to re-
peat them now.
With this exposition of the matter there
need be no hesitation in claiming that when
DR.. Van Dyke stood up in that Assembly at
Chicago and sOlemnly asserted what he did
concerning the Southern Assembly, he as
serted what was very incorrect, and that the
partial extract which he read from its action
in 1870, cannot possibly sustain his position.
The conclusion from the whole is that in this
thing he did grieVously mislead that Assem-
bly, E.; and that is just what We alleged against
him. That DR.. Marquis was not allowed an
opportunity of putting straight what had
been SO improperly made crooked, and also
certain other matters bearing upon the whole
case, will next be fully established.