New Series, Yol.. iV, ISTo. 11.
fraetiiau
THURSDAY, MARCH 14,1867.
THE POINT OF UNION—HAS IT BEEN
FOUND?
In forming a union between any number
of denominations, the alternative which pre
sents itself is: shall we renounce our pecu
liarities in order to union, or shall we agree
to tolerate them?. lii other words: Shall
we aim at uniformity, ox at the union merely
of elements:more or loss diverse?
No intelligent Presbyterian believes that
the various bodies bearing that name, Or
that any two of them can be brought to
gether on the basis of uniformity. Or, if he
believes it practicable" tb secure uniformity
in inodes of benevolent action, management
of Theological Seminaries, &c., he cannot
peftuade himself; for a moment, that unifor
mity of doctrinal belief will ever be attained
or conceded as the basis of such union. The
great schools of opinion which have ever
been embraced under the general term “ Cal
vinism,” and comprehended under the Pres
byterian polity will never be effaced, and
will never cease to claim the name of Calvin
and to organize under more or less Presby
terian forms. Presbyterianism has steadily
resisted all attempts at doctrinal uniformity,
not only by dividing into various organiza
tions, each with own type of doctrine;
but by tolerating within ihe limits of the
same organization, more or less’diversity of
views. The history of the Church shows
that there lias been union with such diver
sity. It shows that disunion has begun just
where the attempt to secure uniformity has
been made. And there is no need to look
far for proof that those who insist on uni
formity now, mean neither more nor less
than to defeat the scheme of union if they
can. While it is equally manifest, that the
true friends of union are those who insist on
a generous comprehension of; all the shades
of doctrinal belief, included within the limits
of a, genuine dalvimimv >
These remarks hold good especially of
Presbyterianism and Calvinism in this coun
try. In Europe they have either assumed
stereotyped forms, or have lapsed into down
right and open heresy. Some exceptions,
indeed, there are to be noticed. But the
Scottish type of theology, as a rule, has been
as rigid as if it had come from an iron
foundry, with the chilling process superad
ded to the cooling. Discussions and divisions
there, have generally concerned ecclesiasti
cal subjects; the “Marrow Controversy,” as
it was called, in 1720, is the only notable in
stance of a theological struggle in Scotland
for nearly two hundred years. (See Dr.
Smith’s Hagen bach, Vol. 11., § 285 c.) The
vivid interest in doctrinal themes which
glowed in the minds of the' American repre
sentatives of the Calvinism of the Old World,
was without example or parallel in the mo
ther Churches. Jonathan Edwards, and
Samuel Hopkins, and Nathaniel Emmons,
and the great movement they represented,
cannot be matched in the history of Scotch
Presbytery. And while error has been
taught, yet the movement, as a whole, has
been Bound, healthy, and eminently useful.
It has shown the falsehood of the prejudice
entertained against Calvinism as essentially
bigoted, narrow, and intolerant; as unfavor
able to the free play and expansion of the
intellect, as unfit for educating a great
Church or a great people.
The free discussions and the splendid in
tellectual achievements of Calvinistic lead
ers in this country, have won for America
the honor of illustrating, in the history of
dogmatic theology, the elastic and liberal
character and wide comprehensiveness of
true Calvinism. It was reserved to Presby
terians of this country, after Geneva, Hol
land, England, and Scotland had each con
structed its Church upon pretty much the
same type of doctrinal uniformity, in 1729
to lay the foundation of the last great Pres
byterian structure, in the Hew World, upon
the basis of the Adopting Act, which con
strues the standards of the Church as being,
“in all the essential and NECESSARY AR
TICLES good forms of sound words and sys-
TEMS of Christian doctrine,” and which left
it to tho Synods and Presbyteries, in each
case, to decide whether doctrinal scruples,
or even mistakes, of candidates for the min
istry were “ about articles not essential and
necessary in doctrine, worship, and govern
PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, MARCH 14,1867.
ment.” Memorable concessions to the spirit
of-a sound Scriptural, Evangelical liberality
are these! Alas for the Presbyterian Church
in this country, that it, soon proved unfaith
ful to. the generous ideal of its founders. Its
history would never have been so marred
with diyisionsif it had not beenfor the efforts
of intolerant reactionaries, in the last cen
tury and in this, to force upon the Church
in America the,rigid yoke of doctrinal uni
formity, to which the comparatively inani
mate and ‘sluggish Churches .of the Old
World submitted.. It was putting new wine
into old bottles, sewing a piece of new cloth
on an old garment; and all the sad conse
quences of , such an unwise proceeding,
against which our Saviour gave warning in,
thq parable, have occurred. Only it has
happened, in the, Providence of God, that,
new bottles,have been found for the new
wine, so that not all of, it has perished.
When it came to pass , that-the intolerant
elements, gaining the upper-hand, cast out
the liberal, then the liberal element proved'
the legitimacy of the movement, by not fall
ing into helpless fragments or merging into
non-Presbyterial bodies, or plunging in to the!
slough of all heresies—pelagian, Socinian,
and Universalist, as it was loudly predicted
they would; but by reorganizing, amid many
tears, disadvantages, cares, arid prayers, the
shattered and repudiated.form of American
Presbyterianism; standing by it, nursing it,
suffering for it, until it has emerged at last,
a flourishing, vigorous, well-established
Church; recognized among the "live” reli
gious institutions of the land; performing,
for liberty, law, and government, by its pul
pits and the acts of its courts, before and
during the recent struggle, such hearty and
efficient service as genuine Presbyterianism
is, indeed fitted to render; and presenting to
the world an example which! it had never
before witnessed, of a well-organized Church,
upon a sound Calvinistic creed, avowedly
tolerating differences of opinion upon the
minor points of that creed;—the example, so
greatly needed, of a genuine but tolerant
Orthodoxy in the Church; of ample safe
guards against serious error; associated with
the breadth and liberality of view demanded,
not more by the culture of our age, than by
the spirit of the Gospel itself. All that was
valuable in the original idea of the' Broad
Church, —and there was much in it that was
very valuable, —is to-day exemplified in the
so-called New School Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America.
This, then, is our position: toleration with
in the limits of a sound Calvinistic creed;
and a thorough Presbyterian polity as the
guardian of Orthodoxy and of order. And
what is to be said of it in view of the dis
cussion on Union? Plainly this: If union
means uniformity, subjection to a single
construction of the meaning of our Stand
ards, or the commencement of a new set of
measures for the suppression of a wholesome
diversity of opinion, then our branch of the
Church can have nothing to do with it, unless
it disavows and discredits its own principles,
its men, its works, its sufferings and achieve
ments for liberty of speculation and con
struction, within the plain limits of a sound
theology. But if by Union is meant a reor
ganization of Presbyterianism on the basis of
a comprehension and toleration of the well
known differences between various Calvinist
schools, that is just where we are, and have
been all the time. That is the principle
we have suffered and contended. for, and
which, when expelled from the then Presby
terian Church, by the revolutionary act of
an accidental majority, with the expectation
of divorcing it forever from the Presbyterian
name, we rescued and restored to the posi
tion in the Presbyterian Church, which the
Adopting Act gave it, 140 years ago. In this
view, ours is the true Union position. It is
an anticipation of all movements for union
among Presbyterians. Unless uniformity is
the true object sought under the name of
union, we are at the point where the Union
must be consummated, and we should be
careful not to be dislodged from our posi
tion.
Since the above was in type, we notice an
unintentional confirmation of the general
spirit of our remarks, in the Church Union,
a paper devoted to the interests of union
among Evangelical Churches generally. In
the leading editorial of March 9, after ex
plaining why the advocates of Church Union
have a controversy with Episcopalians, and
with Baptists, the writer continues:
“ With the Presbyterian branch We have
little to do. The great majority of . Presby
terian ministers, to their honor be it spoken,
preach Christ, and him alone. There is loss
of cant, or ranting, or sentimental preaching
in that branch of the Church than elsewhere.
The'evil of Presbyterianism is accidental
ratherthan organic. Their schools are their
oracles, and Princeton is their pope—a good
pope, by the way, if it were best to have
any one. But it matters little from what
point we approach Presbyterianism, it is
solid granite, whether -#e .regard its doc
trine, its discipline, Or-isff worship. The
best minds in Church have framed its
creed, the wisest men have learned civil
government from its polity, and in these
days of ritualistic abominations-there is one ;
church where-we can go and worship God
in simplicity and in truth. There is much
narrowness, more pride, and not h little am
bition to be the ruling power in the Church
—accidental to Presbyterianism—but its
glory is its stability and gOod sense.”
What have we here, hut an indirect, though;
very strong commendation of,'the position!
of our branch of the Presbyterian Church,
as adapted for union, not only of the differ
ent branches of the Presbyterian family,
but of the entire Evangelical Church ?
THE BRITISH DELEGATIONS TO THE
AMERICAN CHURCHES.
In our last week’s issue, we announced that
the -Rev. Dr. Guthrie, ithe most eloquent and
popular of Scottish clergymen, whose name
is a household word in all-pur churches, had
been'appointed to represent the Free Church
of Scotland at the meeting of our American
supreme courts of judicature in May next.
Dr. Guthrie’s great name is enough tb se
cure him an enthusiastic reception in this
country, which his official position, as the
ambassador of the Church of Chalmers and
Cunningham is hardly heeded to do.
Since our last, we have learned, on good
authority, that , the Irish Assembly’s Com
mittee on Foreign Correspondence have se
lected as the representatives on the same oc
casion the’-Revs. Dr. Derham of Londonder
ry, and Dr. John Hall of Dublin. The for
mer of these % divines wbn his spurs in the
.part authorship; of tb for: Presbytery,
which is one of the‘liveliest and ablest con
tributions to that controversy that has ever,
appeared, and has done much to, build up a.
denominational esprit du corps among Irish
Presbyterians and so conduced very largely
to the more 'efficient support of every de
nominational enterprise.
Dr. Hall has still larger claims upon our
welcome. As the leader of the rising anti-
Regium Donum party in the Irish church, and
as the faithful and unwavering friend of
America during our great conflict both on
the floor of the Assembly and in the edito
rial chair of the Dublin Evangelical Witness,
he forms a fitting representative of Irish
Presbyterianism in its best and worthiest
aspect, and well deserves the doctorate con
ferred upon him two years ago by Washing
ton and Jefferson Colleges. As a preacher
Dr. Hall has few equals in the British Is
lands; highly favored the churches esteem
themselves that can secure his services, and
in many a quiet country town, the priest
hurries through mass, and the rector leaves
his curate in the pulpit to hoar the great
metropolitan preacher. His own church in
Dublin (Mary’s Abbey) is one of the finest
Gothic structures in Ireland, as well as one
of the best filled.
It may be remembered that at the begin
ning of our late war, Dr. Hall proposed to the
British Presbyterian Churches, that they
should undertake the support of the Foreign
Missionary operations of their sister churches
of America during the continuance of the
struggle. We rejoice that God strength
ened the back to the burden that He had
laid upon us, and that our churches sustain
ed their own messengers in the Gospel; but
we think that the present is a fitting occa
sion to recall that proposal to our remem
brance, when its author is soon about to
visit our shores.
A Case that may have a parallel.— A
resolution adopted by a Connecticut conso r
ciation, in regard to a union of the two
Tract Societies, has elicited the fact that a
Conference looking to that end has actually
been held, without at-all bringing the two
Societies nearer. The Hew York Society
insisted that tfiat of Boston should assume
a subordinate or branch relation, with per
haps, some enlarged privilege as to the pur
chase of books, and that Hew York should
have the sole editorship of the publications,
the ,T sole appointment and control of the
hundreds of colporteurs laboring over the
whole country (including New England;) as
also'"of district Secretaries and accredited
agents laboring among the churches; and
ithatkll money received or collected should
go directly into the New York Treasury.
The NeW York Society claimed that the
causes which led to the separation eight!
years before, grew out of the constitution of
that Society, and that that constitution had
never been changed, and no hint of any pos
sibility of change was given. The Boston
Society (the older of the two) refused to
give up its independence for any connection
which would bind them t<> any action, either
in publishing or general administration, in
which it ha’d not a co-ordinate voice. " How
ever needless,” they say r “ the expense of
two separate organizations, the responsi
bility of it, we submit, does not rest with
this Society.”
OIJR .WASHINGTON LETTER.
The third meeting of the Congressional
Temperance Society, was held in the Hall of
the , House of Representatives on Sunday
evening. It was largely attended, as all of
.them have been. The influence of this so
ciety is being felt far and near. The cause
of temperance here has received an impetus,
such as it never-had. before. Societies and
orders for the promotion of the cause are
receiving large accessions, and the rum in
terests, which have hitherto controlled
everything, have received their first stag
gering blow. Many congressmen no.v re
fuse to offer wines, to their guests, and the
appearanpe and conduct of some, on the last
days of the late session, was a great im
provement on their previous behaviour. The
closing scenes of the last Congress were
marked by less drunkenness than any, for the
last quarter of a century. Several senators,
-notorious . for their indulgence in strong
drinks, have recently signed the pledge, and,
although two or three have been unable to
keep it, yet they have refrained from ex
cessive-indulgence, so that their imprqved
personal appearance has been, often remarked
by their constituents. The movement did
not begin any too soon, and it should re
ceive encouragement from all good men.
But the Capitol is not the only place where
the reform is needed; the White House, the
Departments, and even the Supreme Court
will be benefitted by joining in it.
Senator Wilson, President of the Congres
sional Temperance Society, and for many
years an earnest advocate of the cause, in
troduced a bill into the Senate for the abo
lition of the sale and use of ardent spirits in
the Capitol, but it failed by a vote of 22 to
21, and was buried in a committee. Senator
Johnson was opposed to the sale of liquors,
but he thought senators ought to be allowed
the privilege of carrying their pocket-flasks
with them. It :6 strange, that when the air
about him has been made nauseous so often,
and his own desk foul by the drunken ex
pectorations of certain of his political friends,
he should plead that they might still be al
lowed to “ put an enemy into their mouths
to steal away their brains.”
There is much speculation relative to the
length of the present session of Congress.
The House would like to adjourn at an ear
ly date, and fixed to-day, Monday, for the
time, but the Senate are unwilling to vacate
their scats until the twenty days allowed the
President, by the Office Tenure Bill, for
sending in nominations for confirmation,
have elapsed. The appointment clerks are
busy at work making out commissions, and
some of them are appointments eminently
fit to be made. The President’s policy in
this respect is hardly understood. He has
lately appointed a number of radicals to im
portant offices, at the suggestion 'of still
greater radicals. His Democratic suppor
ters are taken back by it, and go so far as
to intimate that he is endeavoring to conci
liate some one in view of impending impeach
ment.
This subject has been before the House,
fail* and square, with no dress on but its
own. The Democrats opened their heaviest
batteries upon it, supposing it would “down”
at their bidding, but they found it some
thing more than “ a ghost,” as they have all
along pronounced it. They found no com
fprt in tho report of the Judiciary Commit
tee upon this subject. "When they reported
that the facts already elicited, justified the
Genesee Evangelist, No. 1086.
charge made by Mr. Ashley, and required
further investigation, they knew, from the
character of the Committee, that that was
the mildest statement of the case that could
be made. This Committee will doubtless be
authorized to prosecute its labors during the
recess, and report on the assembling of Con
gress, whenever that may be. Generals
Butler and Logan, who have looked into the
faces of more of the loyal people of the
country during the last six months, than any
other two public men, and who have touched
upon the subject on all occasions, report
that the people demand the impeachment
of the President. The vote which constitu
ted the majority at the Fall elections im
posed a moral direction upon Congress, and
should be considered a popular impeachment
of him. All that is left for their Represen
tatives to do, is to carry out the details.
.Some who believe iii the justness of the
measure, are deterred from giving it a hearty
endorsement now, on account of financial
interests. They fear a financial storm, which
some predict in any event, but which, they
think, might be hastened by this measure.
But there are others who advocate doing
right, though the heavens fall. So, the ques
tion is reduced to this; shall the Executive
be removed now, or shall we continue to
fight him behind his entrenchments of posi
tion and patronage ?
A WORTHY REPRESENTATIVE.
The lower house at Harrisburg, by a ma
jority of eight votes, passed the bill giving
the question of the Sunday cars to the vote
of our citizens. To this result, which we
are told, was greeted with applause, every
member of the house from Philadelphia,
contributed,- but one. We know our readers
will be glad to see the name of this faithful
and true man, and they will blush for some
professors of religion, when they are told
that this defender of the sanctity of the
Lord’s day is not a member of any Church,
though his family are connected with our
branch. AU honor to representative Adam
Wat.lace of Manayunk, for his independent
stand ; who, as a manufacturer has not only
more substantial interests at stake in the
maintenance of public order than the politi
cal adventurers, who comprise the bulk of
his colleagues, but who can also better esti
mate the value of an undisturbed day of
rest to the working classes. Evidently Mr.
Wallace is a fit man to represent a city
whose interests are so largely manufactur
ing. And, without reference to the profes
sion of religion, we may unhesitatingly trust
the moral concerns of the city to men truly
representing its trade, its business, its work;
and may feel sure, on the other hand, when
men whose names and pursuits cannot be
found in a city directory, are chosen to rep
resent us, that they will be made the mere
tools of dexterous politicians, or will take
the course most likely, in their eyes, to lead
to their own immediate profit or advance
ment.
If our good citizens were iu earnest and
chose to act without reference to party, we
believe they could elect a majority of such
Assemblymen as Mr. Wallace; now, it is
only by chance that such a man is sent to
either house at Harrisburg from this city,
and it is upon the country members we must
rely to protect us from the evil consequen -
ces of our neglect. They did us good ser
vice in the House on this question; we hope
yet to have our Philadelphia Sabbath saved
by the interposition of our friends from the
rural districts in the Upper House.
Colenso. —The Hildebrand of South
Africa, Bishop Gray of Capetown, has hurt
a good cause by bad means in procuring the
election of a new Bishop of Natal. The
clergy of the Diocese of Natal are 18 in num
ber. Of these 16 came to the meeting, which
had been called for the purpose: 2 were ex
cluded because they had continued to ac
knowledge Dr. Colenso to be the Bishop of
Natal. Of the remaining 14, 7 voted for the
election of a new Bishop, and of these 7, 3
had been introduced into the Diocese by the
Bishop of Capetown since the commence
ment of this quarrel with the Bishop of
Natal, and the casting vote was given by the
Dean of Maritzburg. Rev. William Butler,
a High Church ritualist was chosen, and has
referred the question of his acceptance to his
bishop (Wilberforee) and two others. The
Archbishop of Canterbury declared in con
vocation :
“ I could never vote for a resolution which
could be construed as being a recommenda
tion to the Church in South Africa to conse
crate a new Bishop.” m