even the incidental declaration in a narrative to stand by an institution of the country, a traditional inheritance from our fathers. Even though, from the ambiguity of human language, these chance references may not have been always discreetly expressed, the most that a just criticism could pronounce is that they are inconsistent with the judicially pronounced principle upon which the Southern Assembly entered upon its troubled career. And when exaggerated to their largest proportions by all the prejudices of bitter partisanship, they dwindle into motes and specks by the side of those elaborate and colossal deliverances, repeated each year through formal committees, and exalted into solemn testimonials co-ordinate with the doctrines of religion and of faith, which disfigure the legislation of both the Northern Assemblies through successive years.'

How dare they affirm that the war votes of our Assemblies were made “co-ordinate with the doctrines of religion and faith?”

But still more astounding is the charge that the union of the two Presbyterian bodies "involves a total surrender of all the great testimonies of the church for the fundamental doctrines of grace," and "must come at length to embrace nearly all shades of doctrinal belief !” We bave nothing to say in regard to the doctrinal basis of the united church which we did not say a year ago, and have no room now to repeat. This we dcem a sufficient refutation of all such charges as the foregoing. We now only add to these the argumentum ad hominem: whoever else might venture such a charge, the Southern church cannot, without tabling the like charge against itself, for it has done the same thing. Some years ago it coalesced with the New School Synod South upon the doctrina! basis of the standards pure and simple, receiving all ministers and churches of that Synod to the precise standing they had anterior to the union. “Therefore, thou art inexcusable, o man ! whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”—Rom. ii. 1. This is so palpable that it was emphatically objected to this part of the report in the Sonthern Assembly, in the debate preceding its adoption. The venerable Dr. F. A. Ross, of Huntsville, Alabama, in whose church the Assembly is to meet next year, said, and as conversant with the facts from intimate personal knowledge :

* Ibid.

"The second point I would notice is, that an objection to the consideration of the question of correspondence is that the Old School North and the New School North have united. But the Old School South and the New School South have done the same thing. Dr. Barnes is the front of New Schoolism; still I believe he would have agreed to the basis of union determined upon in Lynchburg in 1863. That arrangement has not changed the preaching of any one. Every member of the United Synod has the right to preach just as he preached before ; every member of the Old School has the right to preach just as he did before. Where is the difference between the union of the two branches in the North and those in the South? In both cases there was some preliminary discussion as to terms, but finally in both cases they united on the basis of the standards pure and simple. Why, then, should we object to corresponding with them on the ground that they have effected just such a union as we had done before ?

“ I am sorry to use the words Old School and New School in this body. We are not the Old School Assembly; we are neither Old School nor New School, but the Presbyterian Church in the United States. It has been said that the members of the United Synod were Old School men. I mentioned one, a leader among them. He was further from the views of many here than even Albert Barnes.”

Dr. Rice said:

“We must do no act that will for a moment ruffle the calmness and peace resting upon us. It is for this reason, sir, that I object to that report of the committee which speaks of the union of the Old and New Schools of the North as one reason why we cannot hold intercourse with them because we are the only heirs of the truths which have fallen to the ground. You know very well, Mr. Moderator, that I am an Old School man; that I was one of the very last to consent to the union of our church in the Synod which was consummated in 1864. Now, having agreed to that union, and these New School brethren having come among us we are called upon to maintain the doctrines of God's house, and we are bound to stand by those brethren and regard them as integral portions of our church. And therefore it is not right for us to say we object to holding intercourse with the Northern Assembly because they received the New School. It is true that there is a wide difference between the two positions; but we have accepted these brethren as a part of ourselves, and I trust that you will do nothing that will make it appear that we are not one, for we are one."

How can all this be gainsaid? And what had Dr. Palmer to say in reply? We extract from the Christian Inquirer and Free Commonwealth, of June, from which we have copied all our extracts from this debate :

“Dr. Palmer then stated that he was very much impressed with Dr. Hopkins' remark, that Dr. Lyon had assumed that all this opposition to a correspondence with the Northern church. proceeds merely from hatred. This idea he combated, and then proceeded to notice Dr. Ross's remarks about union of the churches in the North and those in the South. He stated that much more care had been taken to secure orthodoxy in the Southern church. There had been no diplo. macy in their coming together. There is no jar or discord between them. It never had occurred to him that there was a shade of difference doctrinally between them.”

And is this all the justification he can make out for the difference he puts between the Southern and Northern churches, assuming for the former the function of guardian and conservator of orthodoxy, and the prerogative of denouncing the latter as surrendering her testimonies to the faith once delivered to the saints ? Allowing the utmost force to the considerations above adduced by him, they only touch the accidents and unessential circumstances of the case. They do not affect the essence of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical platform of the two bodies. These are identical—the simple standards. But we deny that “ more care has been taken to secure orthodoxy in the Southern church.” So far from this, plans of union were rejected twice by the Northern church, because they contained the slightest qualification of the standards; and it was thus proved that no union was possible except on the pure and simple standards. Not only so, but we boldly affirm, from knowledge independent of the testimony of Dr. Ross and Dr. Rice, that no latitude of doctrine can be found in the Northern, which has not been tolerated freely and without question in the Southern church. What shall we say then to the amazing assurance which vents itself in such "colossal” fulminations? Probably it is useless to say much at present. It is either above or below being reasoned with. It must be left to speak for itselt. Probably the following extracts from Dr. Palmer's speech explain the animus of the leaders, who were able, by their force of intellect and eloquence, to magnetize the Assembly with their own feelings :

* He paid an eloquent tribute to the Southern Presbyterian Church-the only home he had left. 'I am a disfranchised man,' he said. "The boy who waits on my table at iwelve dollars a month dictates to me at the polls who shall be my master. I have no vote. I am an exile in the land of, my birth. My only consolation is that I have a home in the church of God. I want peace, and do not, therefore, want to be involved in any of these complications. We have not approached them with any disturbing proposition. Why should they come and disturb us, and seek to divide brethren who are united ? ... Moderator, I do not propose to sacrifice substance for shadow at any time. If you enter into

this conference, in three years there will be a fusion between this Assembly and the North. I am opposed to fusion, and will never consent individually to be fused into any body. I hold to the old maxim, obsta principiis. Probably that correspondence is introduced in every case with the ulterior view of amalgamation."

Somehow, the reporter mislaid his notes of a portion of this speech, most of all, it is said, surcharged with bitter in vective against the North. However this may be, the above means simply that they wish to prevent every sort of conference or correspondence, because they believe it would speedily result in a fusion with us, and that all the apparent differences that now keep the bodies asunder would, on thus meeting face to face, vanish or dwindle into insignificance. Such fusion they do not want, and are resolved to prevent if possible, because, while every other sphere in which their peculiar ideas could dominate is lost, their church kept thus insulated, is their only remaining “home.” In the above extract Dr. Palmer depicts the issue of his former appeals to the Southern people, to use his present cautious phrase, “ to stand by an institution of the country, a traditional inheritance from our fathers."

It remains to be seen whether his present ingenious and passionate appeals to the Southern church, breathing a very similar spirit, to raise an impassable barrier between itself and the Northern church, by requiring the latter as a condition precedent to conference, to confess that it has bound itself to the chariot wheel of Cæsar," and has apostatized from the faith by doing just what the Southern church has done, will reach a more auspicions consummation. We do not believe that such accusations from such a source will be heard with deference beyond the geographical limits of the body making them; or that they will long mislead Southern Christians; or always continue to stultify even their authors. We pray and hope that the dark veil may be lifted which now discolors and distorts their view of the Northern church, and of all connection with it; and that in due time all barriers to full fellowship with brethren whom, on so many accounts, we love, may be removed.

Art. VIII.-The Evangelical Alliance.* The writer of this article was well acquainted with two worthy men, adherents respectively of two of Scotland's sternest sects, who met of an evening to discuss the merits of their churches. They resolved in their wisdom to begin with their points of difference, and they disputed till it was tirst late and then early, and they separated while the day was. breaking without coming nearer each other, but fixing on another night for renewing the controversy. When they met on that occasion, a wiser though not a better man, recommended them to commence with their points of agreement; and they found these to be so numerous and important that. they parted at a decent hour on the understanding that they should adjourn the consideration of their points of discordance till they met in heaven. The two men have been in that blessed place for the last quarter of a century--as time moves in this world—but even with the assistance of “Gates Ajar” we have not been able to ascertain whether in their lengthened (as it seems to us) sojourn there they have so exhausted the wondrous sights and truths disclosed to them as to allow of their coming to the points about which they disputed on. earth---which

was, whether a certain burgh oath, long since abrogated, was or was not lawful.

The anecdote chimes in with “the tune of the times," which is loud in praise of the union of churches and Christians. And yet we are not at liberty to overlook the differences of those who profess to be Christians. The Church of Christ, as a whole, every individual church, and every individual member is set for defence of the truth. There have been occasions in which a minority were required by faithfulness to Christ to separate from a majority. Dogmas or ceremonies which they believed to be contrary to the Word of God were imposed on them, and as “whatever is not of faith is sin” they could relieve their conscience only by assuming a position of

* The long and permanent connection of Dr. McCosh with the Evangelical Alliance will invest this account of it from him with special interest for our readers.

« ElőzőTovább »