The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-05-01
WAS 1T CONSIsTENT9

lowing be noted:
L. dn his speech in the Chicago Assembly |
last year, he refers to paper which ne says
was drawn by my own hand land therefore
l know what it meant, or what it vas intend |
ed to mesn'' and this paper declared that
the former deliverances of the Assemblies of
which that was the lineal descendant, and of
which the Southern brethren complained,
we're null and void" He adds:
81 think l know what null and void
means; and think l know that when that
Assembly said that, it meant it. carried
that message-being honored with the office
of eace-maker-to the Assembly at Louis
vile" "My judgment then was that
this Assembly ought just to stand upon that
declaration and say nothing more, If it took
ten or twenty years to vindicate the sound
ness of that principle"
That is number one let US now look at
number
?. In the spring of 1868 the Rev. DR.. J.
Il. Brookes and others sent up to the Assem-
By At fillmore a paper concerning ''irster-
81 ens." Il vas FRED to the Con-
mittee q Bills aud 0yersures. Of which the
Rev. DR.. s. ]. Niccolls was chairman. When
reported to che Assembly the terms recon-
mended for adoption in the memorial were
changed. This led to some remarks in q
sermon by DR.. BrOOkes in which DR.. Van
Dyke was charged with having brought
about the alteration in this paper, because
He thought it went too far" The Rev,
DR.. r. P. Farris, of S.. Louis, thereupOn
wrote to Dr.. Van Dyke expressing the con
victiOu that in some way his language or
meaning had been Inexperienced. In an
swer to this DR.. Van Dyke replies
"Your letter of the 18th of June utterly
smazes me. There is not q word of truth in
the report that the paper adopted by the
Baltimore Assembly was modified to its pre-
sent shape at my suggestion, or through my
influence"
Then after stating how the paper was con.
cocted, we find the following:
81 have never said, as 1 certainly have
never thought, that Dr.. Brookes paper Went
too far. italics his owu.) cit has been,
and is a sincere regret to me that any alter
alton was made in il"
After referring to the action of the AS
sembly at Baltimore, he goes on to say;
"Is not this enough as preliminary to
friendly conference? Is not this sufficient
ground on which Christian men can meet,
and talk and pray over their mutual griev
ances What may come as the result OF
such a Conference it is not for me to say
But instead of thinking DR.. BrOokes paper
went too far as basis of ultimate settlement,
am free to say that our Assembly ought,
and I believe it will, adopt much stronger
paper, whenever it shall be presented as the
result of friendly conference, and as basis
of more friendly relations mutually agreed
upon by its own committee and the repre-
sentstives, whether of the Southern Church
OF of the Old School Synod of Missouri. =
Now put these two declarations together;
a. 10 1870 his judgment was land he evil
IDENTIFY means that it was so uniformly up to
the time he uttered these words in Chicago
that his Assembly ought to stand by the
''nulI and void" paper he conveyed to ours.
~ In 1878, when another paper was passed
at Baltimore, which went little farther, be
was decidedly of the opinion it did not 60
near as far as the Assembly ought and would
90, if we would only appoint Committee of
Conference. Well, We did appoint one, and
now, gentle reader, let us come to number
8. AS soon as DR.. Van Dyke took his seat
in that conference we find him forthwith Of
fering to the committee of the Southern
Church for their acceptance, statements and
views such as the following:
at was not because we were unaware that
such expressions and actions as you quote
from our records were to be found there, but
because we knew that all such action con-
corning your Church had been in the most
positive and comprehensive language declared
null and void, and therefore of no binding
effect" etc.
"ThuS by this comprehensive declaration
the deliverances of which you complain were
stripped of all possible authority in the re-
united body"
Is this the same Dr. Van Dyke who did
not think the Baltimore paper went far
enough? "Rsu! guam mutat@S ab TO-
But the whole case does not yet appear. He
cites in detail that very paper, and then Of
fers to our Committee in the Conference
these remarks:
"We can add nothing to the force of these
direct and simple uttersuees by comment or
at is not the custom of Pres
byterisns to make uttersnees of uncertain
meaning; 'fthe simplicity, the breadth and
the force of what our General Assembly has
so repeatedly affirmed, challenges for its per-
feet candor, the respectful confidence, in its
full meaning, of all who bear that name. =
To this it is added that Gin the foregoing
statement" sour committee are unanimous.
A fair summary of it all may be set down
thus: a. 81 have always declared that our
Assembly said and did as much as they ought
in 1870, when took that paper drawn by
nv own hand" to Louisville, and that we
50 ought Just to stand upon that declaration
And say nothing more, if it took ten or twenty
years to vindicate the souudness of that prin-
,iple." q In 1873. land IN accordance Nth
he opinion expressed above 2! did also posi-
lively declare that the Baltimore paper (which
vent little farther than that of 1907 did
,ot on far snougb: and was free to saw that