The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-09-06

equal honesty, believe to be our Hyper
Calvinism. But on all other points we
are brethren and we can press our con-
gregational enterprises side by side, in
the same towns and neighborhoods, with
out strife, each doing good in our own
way. Why cannot Northern Presbyte
rians, near or among us. if they still feel
bound In conscience to maintain their
anti Presbyterian principles on these
grave and momentous points dividing
US, behave in the same way, and let us
alone? That would be good manners.
In word, they hare chosen, they say
conscientiously, to disrupt and deStroy
that at''aty of doctrine and order of which
the interchange of delegates is the EN-.
blem. Then we can't help it; only we
have our duty to perform, as witness
ing Church, which we propose to do in
the mlldest form possible. To destroy
the unity by their own deliberate action,
and then ask the badge of it. is neither
good manners nor morals.
Another argument for changing the
righteous attitude OF our Assemblies has
struck me with establishment. 1t is in
substance, that the old men who were
actors in the separation of 1861, are
nearly all dead and gone; that the new
men who will soon govern the Church
were not actors in that division; and.
therefore, it is time, or will soon be time,
to drop the old testimony" ask my
self-what absurdity is this l hear e?
Does truth graw old2 Do vital princi-
pies become antiquated? If these men
would come out, and say out aloud,
q" that the Popery of the Spring resolu.
tons, the semi pelagianism Of New
Haven theology, the 1egislated SANDER
of an innocent Church, are all sound
Presbyterianism that the men of 1861
were wrong in testifying against these
vital departures, then 1 could under
stand. But when our opponents assure
us unanimously that their Church as
serts two out Of these three departures
to-day, just as before see not what on
earth the coming of new, and the going
OF an old generation of the friends Of
truth, have to do with the cessation of
our testimony. l thought that Gods
Word promised, In place of the fathers
shall be the children ;" that the per-
torrance OF the interesting duty was a.
part of the sacred Inheritance of be-
levers, until God is pleased to terminate
the witness bearing by converting the
errorlsts. According to this notable ar
gument, as soon as Luther and Calvin on
one side, and Eek and Leo X on the
other, were dead, the Protestants and
Papist ought to have gone into "frater-
nal relations" AS soon as John Wesley
on one side, and Whitefeld and LADY
Huntingdon on the other, were dead, ali
the Eyangelicals in England ought to
have flowed together and declared that
Arminianism and Calvinism came to the
same thing. The truths at issue were
Whitefeld's truth, forsooth, instead of
Gods truth Equally Assured is the ar
gument now.
The Assembly of 1875.
My next remark is, that our Assembly
is now realizing the bad consequences Of
its erroneous position assumed in 1875.
1t then, under the guidance of its Com
mlssioners to the Baltimore Conference.
compromised the two stronger thirds of
is basis of action, when it declared that
the errors of doctrine and order per-
petuated by the Spring resolutions and
their sequels, and by the unguarded re-
cognition of New Haven theology, should
be no barrier to the resumption of the
more intimate relations, but only the un-
retracted libel on our Church. The
sophistical argument for this unfortunate
position was as follows: That for any
betrayal Of the principles of Christs
kingdom, the Northern Church was not
responsible to us, but only to Christ
that they were responsible to us only for
their libel Of us; that hence, if they
would only withdraw that, it was 10
business of ours to deal with them about
the other defections.
But it is the simplest solution in the
world, that this is the true statement:
" Both Northern and Southern Church
are responsible, in all things, to Christ
Their Lord, and not to each other; that
we, as witnessing Church, and RESPONSE
BILE to Christ for bearing our testimony,
In appropriate ways against all error;
Just as they are responsible to Him, not
to us, for teaching any error" The
argument criticize is refuted by every
usage and act of the older and sounder
Assemblies. Why did they always
withhold correspondence by delegates
from the Lutheran, the Methodist, the
Immersionist Churches? Because they
had libelled the Assembly? Not at ali.
But because they marred, in some par
ticulars, Christ's truth. A0nin the