The herald., 1894-07-05
WHY REVISION FAILED.


question. "Why revision at all?" II
there was no necessity for a revision OF
the confession then it ought to have
failed. This writer in his unspoken
speech, published in the New York
Evangelist ir its issue OF June 16, 1892,
said, in giving reason for revision: "it
was protest long brewing in the hearts
Of many Presbyterians against the hard
and unscriptural teachings OF chapter
three and its coroIlaries, which gave
birth to the thought of revision. There
is no disloyalty to Presbytsrianism in
the church, but there is revolt against
the letters which Calvin has bound
around it,"
Those who favored revision because
OF the ambiguity Of language" or the
''infelicties of expression" found in the
Westminster, did great injustice to
the literary precision and scholarly
accuracy which are every where predom-
insnt in the confession. There is
nothing to our mind ambiguous" in
the manner in which the creed OF
Calvin, as expressed in his Institutes,
found utterance in the Westmnster
confession. The confession wss, to
very great degree, seance
with the spirit of Calvin, az
it eet forth his teachings in language
not exceled in purity OF style, or logical
exactness by aay production in that age
OF English literature. 1t seems to US
rather begging the question, and soma
what O critlque OF the scholarship OF the
present age to claim that there are "am'
biguities" a5 to what was meant to be
taught by the Westminster confession.
With the most profound Difference to
those who desired revision ON the am.
biguily idea we sincerely ask il they did
rot use this in order to open up the
whole question of a revision of a creed.
which In so many points seemed more
Calviristic than Christologic.
Calvin called the decree of "reproba-
tion," or "preterition," horrible
dream, yet he was driven to its accept
ance by the force of imperious logic as
necessary sequence of his theory OF
election. To our mind there never were
either antiquities Of expression or ver--
bal infelicities in the confession, and
hence there was no necessity Tor a re-.
vision, for these reasons. The men OF
the Westminster assembly were men
who, like himself, were masters OF
strong Ango.Saxon English, as we'll as
being highly cultured in the literature
OF the Norman.French of that period,
and they wrote in luminous English
Just what they wanted to say, keeping
| in mind all the while the teachings OF
their great spiritual and logica! mentor,
Calvin, as he had expressed himself In
his Institutes.
II it is true, as Calvin taught, and as
the confession teaches, that Coos de-
crees Of election to everlasting lille are
unconditional, then it follows. ex neees-
state, that His decreee az to everlasting
! death muet be unconditional, and. II 70
act or deed of the individual can thwart
Code deaigns as to salvation, then no
act, moral or otherwise, can change LIS
designs as to our final loss.
Every fair-minded man knows full
well that there would have been no ei-
fort at revision If the church had not
long felt that her usefulness had been
| impaired by the narrow theological dog
mas transferred from the Institutes
to our confession. The trouble is
man ever "hewed to the line''
with moro utter disregard :aa
to where the chips would fall. Though
were repudiated both by his judgmen:
and heart, yet he was too loyal to his
! intellectual convictions to stop short OF
their logical conclusions. To our mind
the starting point OF Calvin WAS wrong,
and, though he followed his compass
with heroic step, yet he found that it
had led him to point far removed from
his own conceptions of Gods love and
| Justice.
This starting point, this true scrip
tural idea of election, is the point where
the great battle must ba fought. 1t
vim ?" to "whst saith the Lord?" When
toying with verbal Inaccuracies, but
an enforcement OF Christ and His
teachings in the creed, without regard
to whether or not it is in harmony with
the uninspired dogmas of the sixteenth
century.
The great biblical question on which
Calvinism rests will not be discussed by
this writer. as he is simply an elder and
logical science, and ie more than willing
to leave the biblical argument of this
question to doctrinaires and theological
ApCitp yCe ho SoAtui0S W ncrSib ph"o
his greatest mental effort is not 10 un-
derstand what Christ and His disciples
taught, but to understand the mysti-
csms which sixteenth century philoso-
ply threw around the plain teachings of
our common Bible.
Now, the question recurs: Why did
revision fail? What has been said
supra leads up to this question. In re-.
sponse to the requests of 13 presby-
teriee, the general assembly took up the
matter and defined the scope of revision.
The confession was to be so revised ''aB
not to impair any OF its Calvinistic
teachings" This was q master stroke
of theological fnesse, and, if it had
been in the line of statesmanehip, would
have added new laurel to the brows OF
Talleyrand or Machiaveli. The revis.
ioniets went into this fight with all their
guns spiked. 1t would have been just
as consistent for our revolutionary tore.
fathers, when they assembled to throw
of the restrictions Of monarchy and 10
establish republican form OF govern
ment. to have been told by the English
governors OF the various colonies: "Yes,
republican government is a good
thing, snd there may be same am mbigui-
ties in the phraseology of the English
constitution, and you are hereby Or
dered to go on and revise it, but it is to
be go revised as not to impair the idea
of the divine right of kings to govern
mankind" This would have been jnst