Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-08
PRESBYTERIAN ASSOCIATION.
Revision of the Confession of Faith
Discussed.

church. The evening was devoted to
the discussion of the revision
of the Confession of Faith. r.
M. Irvine acted as moderator. The
paper of the evening was delivered by
DIR. Weller, the president OF the Ocei-
dental University. He said: / will
endeavor to state the points offered by
both sides in this discussion without
allowing the bias of my convictions to
lead me into any unfair position.
The discussion has begun to spread
out over a very wide field, and it is well
to bring it back to its legitimate ground
As rule it will be found that the theo-
logical seminaries oppose the revision
but the colleges favor it; those who are
trained to theological controversy
hold to the Confession, but the people
hesitate The discussion has brought to
light the fact that there is much uncon-
fessed Arminianism in the church. This
is proof that the doors of the church are
wide open. 1t is mistake to suppose
that Presbyterianism and Calvinism are
synonymous. Our test question is
not 'Are you a Calvinist?' but
"Are you Christian?" Many mistake
the purport of the agitation and the end
sought by it. The purpose is revision,
not revolution. To carry this revision
into an expurgation of Calvinism is rev.
olutionary, and was not intended in the
beginning Cf the movement. Anything
| that will seek to moderate or change the
Calvinistic system will not be tolerated.
1t is maintained by those who oppose re-
vision that the Westminster doctrines
form the most complete eXegesis ever
promulgated, and it is the part of wisdom
to let we'll enough alone that insuperable
obstacles lie in the way of revision
that there will be no stopping place
that even the explanations will have to
be explained; that changes of words
will change the system; that those who
urge revision are not true Calvinists,
and this accounts for their wish to have
changes made; that the discussion has
revealed Emergencies which are irrecon-
cilable, which will bring disruption into
the church unless checked at the outset
that it is a serious matter to change sym
bols hallowed by 200 years of use.
On the side of revision it is urged that
the Confession is fallible human pro-
duction and may be changed; that
| the successes of the church were
achieved not through, but in spite of it;
that it contains statements, az in chap
! lClS - dilQ ~, WlliSl dIS W HIS
construction, to the serious detriment of
the work of the church; that those who
oppose the revision magnify its diff
culties; that such arguments as they
offer would have stopped every reform
in the world; that the book contains
much extraneous matter; that it is not
simple enough and not scriptural
enough, lacking warmth and devotion.
In conclusion, the doctor called at
tention to the fact that some
of the recognized leaders of Calvinistic
doctrines are ranged on the side of re-
vision. He thought that to take back
the work unchanged, after all that has
been brought out in the discussion,
would be against rather than in favor of
the best interests of the church. This
was an age of missions of reform and
advance, and every obstacle should be
moved out of the way of the church in
its work. No clubs should be placed
| in the hands of its enemies. If
there was some loss from the
discussion there was also some
gain. In the end the truth would
prevail and it was best for the race that
| it should, even if the most cherished
symbols fell before it.
| After the reading of the paper the
matter was opened to general discussion,
with a limit of five minutes to the
speeches. Rev. Robert Reese led off
with some emphatic and almost bitter
utterances. He declared that many of
those who desired revision offered argu-
ments of exactly the same tenor as those
offered by Robert Ingersoll, Matthew
Arnold or Professor Huxley. He read
very savage passage from one OF Mr..
Surgeons sermons.
Judge Baxter followed. He said T
believe the Confession as it was written
is not the book which we now need.
We might better take two or three of
the gospels and call them our faith.
That the members of the church are not
asked to subscribe to it is of itself an
argument in favor of revision. 1t should
be investigated to the very bottom, and
everything that is not in accordance
with the bible thrown out.
Rev. r. Logan, of Santa Paula, said:
The revision should be made. The Con-
fession is opposed to the teach
ings of scripture and we cannot
receive it as whole. An ordinary
man has to have it explained to him.
Why have the ministers and elders sub
scribed to what the congregation does
not?
Mr.. Murwin narrated the difficulty he
had experienced in South America in
making converts to Christianity under
stand the Confession. He favored re-
vision, believing that the Lord had
taught us something in the past 250
years.
Prof Parkhill said that the Confession
was written in an age of theological dis
cussion, whereas this was an age of
practical things. Modern theologians
were in love with the logic of the Con-
fession, but that logic alone would not
save souls.
Mr.. Duncan closed the discussion in
short speech, in which he opposed re-
vision, principally on the ground that it
was unnecessary, and might lead to in
furious discussion.
Nearly everybody needs good medicine at
this season, to purify the blood and build up
he ri 10 is mi