Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-06
A DOCTRINAL DISAGREEM ENT.

| Why Rev. Mr.. Van Dyke Resigned From
Princeton's Faculty-A General Disin-
| cIination on the Part of the Professor s
to Talk on tho Subj sct- Simply Ex-
| planned After All.
| tsrEcIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DIsPArcH.1
PRINCETON, May 5.-Several members
| of the faculty of the Princeton Theological
Seminary were surprised to-day when they
heard of the attempt of New York morn
| ing paper to create n sensation out OF the
| resignation of Rev. Paul Van Dyke, who has
occupied the Chair of Church History in the
! seminary for the last three years. 1t Is said
| that the story was written by a student who
| is in sympathy with Dr.. Briggs, with the
| object of injuring Princeton Seminary. The
| faculty OF the seminary treats the matter
| with indifference, and asserts that very
| little significance attaches to the restgna-
| tion.
DR.. Green is confined to his bed with sick
ness. In reply to several written questions
| taken to his room, regarding Van Dykes
resignation, he sent back the reply that he
was too sick to answer them. DR.. Warfield,
Professor of Systematic and Polemical The
ology, said: "There is nothing to be said on
the matter except that Mr.. Van Dyke asked
the Board of Directors not to consider his
| name as q candidate for the Chair OF Church
History, and the board simply acquiesced
and and appointed another man. Mr. Van Van Dyke
was not professor. He was employed only
for term of three years, which term had eX-
pred The reasons given by Mr.. Van Dyke
for resignation cut no figure with the board.
The board took no notice of them, but SIM
ply granted his request"
At varlancs With Westminster.
In reply to question whether Mr.. Van
Dyke resigned because he was Mt variance
wi ha ri Tr al
answered.: HE was at variance with the
Westminster standards, rather than with
the Princeton theology, If he did not accept
the doctrine of prcterftion."
do you consider the doctrine of preteri-
tIon essential to or an important part Of the
Calvtnistic theology"
"It is an important and essential part of
It," the doctor replied. When asked If he
thized with Mr.. Van Dyke, he said he had
nothin" to do with that.
DR.. Warfield laughed when told that it was
reported that the retirement of Mr.. Van
Dyke was brought about by the demand of
an avowal on his part that he will accept the
standards of the Church in the sense which
has always been put upon them in Prince
ton, and conform his teaching to this inter-
probation and never depart from it. He was
then asked if Mr.. Van Dykes views on the
ology did not indicate leaning to Briggs
he "did not know MI Van Dykes views of
Unions theology" He did not state his
views in his paper to the board, but gave the
views of Princeton Seminary"
Proud of His Own Pupil.
DR.. McCosh was asked his opinion on the
subject. Ho was unwilling to say much
about the question of preUerition. To the
question whether he considered the doc
trine at stake one of such vital importance
as to demand the withdrawal of Mr.. Van
Dyke, DR.. McCosh replied that he did not,
but he declined to speak 1urther on that
question. He referred to the character and
abilities of Rev. Mr. Van Dyke with evident
pleasure and appreciation. He was proud
to claim him as pupil of himself, and
went on to state that the loss of such a man
could not but be felt by the seminary.
Although he made no comment of weight
with reference to the questions involved,
and wanted it distinctly understood that the
entire matter was one in which he had taken
no part. DR.. McCosh said he sympathized with
Rev Mr.. Van Dyke, and docs not consider
the grounds upon which the Board OF Direc-
tors accepted his resignation rs sufficient to
warrant such action. He also said that lie
had intended to speak in behalf of DR.. Van
Dyke, but was not able to be present at the
meeting when the matter was discussed.
Mr.. Van Dyke Explains One Point.
Rev. Mr.. Van Dyke was seen this even
ing in regard to his resignation. He said:
81 have nothing to say, except what have
said In my letter of resignation. Ny per-
sonal relations with the professors OF
Princeton have always been of the most
friendly nature, and my resignation is the
result of doctrinal opinions"
'You don't believe that preterition Is es-
sential to the Calvinistic- system of
theology" the reporter asked. Mr.. Van
Dyke said he did not. In reply to the ques-
tion whether he could subscribe to Calvin's
theology. as taught by Princeton, If the doc
trine OF preterition was expunged from it,
Mr.. Van Dyke replied: 81 can only say that
l find no fault with my standing as Pres
byterian minister, and am perfectly loyal to
the doctrines of our church."
"But preteriton is q doctrine taught by
the Westminster Standards" said the re-
porter.
Mr. Van Dyke replied: Eyes; but don't
care to enter into O discussion about nv
orthodoxy. That has never been ques-
toned"
There is division among the theology
students because of Mr.. Van Dykes posi-
tion as theologian. Some are for him and
some are against him.