LsciUaitinzs.
[From the Independent.]
RE-UNION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN
OHIIROH.
BY REV. SAMUEL T. SPEAR, D.D.
I have received your letter, dated the sth
inst., requesting my opinion upon the fol
lowing question : " In your judgment, will
the two branches of the Presbyterian Church
—the Old School and the New—unite, and
form ono Church and one General Assem
bly:"' You intimated that my answer, if given
at all, should be given as briefly as possible
It is an undoubted fact that the two
branches of the Presbyterian Church have,
for several years past, evinced toward each
other a courtesy, consideration, and confi
dence which, unhappily, did not exist for a
much greater number of years immediately
fiillowing the division. It is especially true
that the Old School Presbyterians have
abandoned the theory of gradual absorption
in respect to the New School, and to a large
extent the offensive practice of impugning
the orthodoxy of the latter. It is equally
trite that, of late, there has been a growing
disposition in both branches toward organic
union, culminating at last in the appoint
ment of a joint committee by the two Gen
eral Assemblies, in the recent report of this
committee, and the action of the two As
semblies thereon. This brings the whole
matter before both branches of the Church
for consideration.
What, then, is the relation between these
two Presbyterian bodies, as now existing?
Though both adopt the same standards and
the same polity, they are, nevertheless, or
ganically and ecclesiastically distinct from
each other—as much so as any two denomi
nations on the face of the earth. The union,
then, moans the naerging.of the two denomi
nations into one, either by the creation of a
new dendmination, or the merging of the
one into the other. In one or the other of
these ways it must be. accomplished, if at
all. " The united body" will not be the
Old School, and it will not be the New
School; but it will be the joint result of the
two, in the event of the creation of a new
denomination. And, in the other case, the
so-called "united body" will simply be the
ecclesiastical organism of the Old School, or
that of the New, greatly enlarged by the
addition of the other.
Will this union take place under the cir
cumstances as now existing, and according
to the plan as submitted by the joint com
mittee ? Upon this question I understand
you to seek my opinion. This opinion I
shall express by a brief comment on„ the fol
lowing series of points :
I. It is very plain that the effort ought
not to be successful, unless both branches of
the Presbyterian Church, by a majority
amounting almost to unanimity, think the
union expedient and sincerely desire it. The
committee name a majority of three-fourths
in both bodies; yet I have serious doubts
whether a measure changing the ecclesiasti
cal status of all the churches in both bodies,
or merging all the churches of one or the
other of these bodies into the other, ought
to be carried except by a much nearer ap
proach to unanimity on the part of all the
parties to be affected by it. It is a very
grave question whether the ecclesiastical re
lation and rights of the local churches, as
now established, are to be disposed of and
altered by any vote taken in the Presby
teries. Suppose some of these churches as
a whole, and minorities in others, refuse to
abide by such a vote; suppose they insist on
remaining just as they are, and where they
are; and then the consequence would be di
vision in one direction in order to effect
union in another. How the question will
be decided when submitted to the Presby
teries, if ever so submitted, I of course can
not tell. Yet at present I see no sufficient
indications that the measure, when thorough
ly canvassed, as it will be, and certainly
ought to be, will Secure Van majority speci
fied by the committee. In this remark I
allude more particularly to that branch of
the Church to which I belong, not feeling my_
self as competent to judge of the other branch.
2. If any considerable minority in the
Old School shall be found in opposition to
the measure, this fact would be fatal to its
success' with the New School. The latter,
now at peace among themselves, and by
their prosperity and good order both de
serving and commanding the respect of
their Old School brethren, will not be likely
to place
.themselves ;n a position to fight
over again the old battles. They have had
quite enough of this to know what it means.
But for the persistent, and, as I think,
wholly unjustifiable attack of the Old School
upon the New there would not have been
any division; and hence the prospects of
union between the two will be very mate
rially affected by the attitude of Old School
Presbyterians. Nothing short o° the most
earnest and nearly unanimous desir e on th e
part of the latter will give the mete.ire the
least hope of success with New School Pres
byterians. This question is not to be h um _
ipulated by a few leaders. The heart of e 4e ,
Church must be thoroughly in it on both
sides, or nothing can be done.
3. I have failed to see any urgent, practi
lal necessity pressing upon either branch of
the Presbyterian Church which requires or
ganic union in order to its relief. Both branch
es are strong in themselves. Both are well or
ganized. Both have their missionary boards
for the propagation of the Gospel. Both
have large invested interests. The country
in which both are working, is abundantly
ample for both, without any conflict or jeal
ousy. Both are in the process of rapid
growth. Neither needs the other for the
purposes of church-life. It might be a
pleasant spectacle in some respects to see
the two united, in one organic fold; but
it is very far from being evident that the
aggregate usefulness of the two would be
increased thereby. It might be seriously
impaired, especially if the union is to result
THE AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN, THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1867.
in the revival of old controversies. There
is at least some danger that the spirit of
party would again make its appearance. It
is, hence, a very important question for both
branches to consider whether both—eath
now working so well in the separate state,
and each accustomed to its own particular
line of policy—bad not better let well enough
alone.
4. New School Presbyterians, in looking
at this subject, will readily see that their
position in the united body would be that
of a minority, since the other branch would
contribute the largest element to the com
mon organization, and hence be able to
count the most votes in the General Assem
bly. As a natural result, the Old School
would determine the general policy and
course of the united body. Union would
be practically merging the New School into
the Old, so far as the control and manage
ment of ecclesiastical matters are concerned.
The politics of the Church would be vir
tually Old School. I have 'some doubts
whether New School Presbyterians will
judge it best to put themselves in this posi
tion. Among themselves they now do
things in their own way and that too a very
good way; they have an ample opportunity
for the display of their own peculiar
characteristics. But in the event of union,
all this would be very g reatly modified by
the numerical preponderance . of. the Old
School. This, 1 confess, seems to me a
point which New School Presbyterians will
do well thoroughly to consider before taking
the step proposed.
5. The doctrinal basis, as submitted by
the Committee, is in the following words
" The Confession of Faith shall continue to
be sincerely received and adopted, as con
taining the system of doctrine taught in the
Holy Scriptures; and its fair historical
sense, as it is accepted by the two bodies,
in opposition to Antinomianism and Fatal
ism on the one hand, and to Arminianism
and Pelagianism on the other, shall be re
garded as the sense in which it is received
and adopted." Just here lies, perhaps, the
greatest difficulty of the whole question.
What is this "fair historical sense, as it is
accepted by the two bodies";
and when and
where has it been set forth? Is this sense
the same in the two Schools ? And if not,
then which of the senses—that of the Old
School, or that of the New—is to be deemed
the " fair historical sense ?" Is there to be
a new sense, different from that of either of
the Schools, which shalt have the power to
harmonize both ? Are the two senses,
though in some respects different, to be ac
cepted and adopted, each being viewed as
perfectly orthodox ? No one can deny that
in the interpretation of the Confession of
Faith Presbyterians of the two Schools
have differed to some extent, and that they
still differ. They stand in this respect just
where they did thirty years ago. Dr.
Hodge of Princeton, for example, and the
ReV. Albert Barnes, though subscribing to
the same Confession, are very clearly Cal
vinistic theologians of different types. The
Immediate Imputation Theory which fig
ures so
,largely in the theodicy of the one
is not held by the other; and hence Prince
ton, the recognized expounder of Old School
theology, can not consistently regard Mr.
Barnes as being orthodox, though he is
most cordially accepted and honored as
such by his New School brethren. The
simple truth is, there is a real difference be
tween the two Schools, hitherto claimed by
the Old School to be essential and vital, and
also admitted as a fact by the New School,
while denied to be essential and vital. Thus
the matter has stood; thus it now stands;
and thus it will continue to stand, unless the
Old School do—what there is not much pro
bability of their doing—virtually concede
that all their past allegations of heresy
against the New School were little better
than simple slander.
Now, in respect to this admitted differ
ence, what is to be done, and what are to be
the terms of union ? The two schools once
contended over this difference with great
earnestness; and if brought together in the
same ecclesiastical organism, upon a basis
Manifestly so ambiguous and uncertain as
tbrbt proposed by the Committee, they are
quite liketX,to do the same thing a second
time. It Strike& me that this point needs a
more precise and definite solution. There
ought to be an absolute and explicit covenant
of mutual toleration, in plain words, binding
both schools in respect to the peculiarities
of each ; and if they cannot agree to such a
covenant, to be placed in the fundamental
law of the church as one of the terms of the
union, then this fact will be proof conclu
sive that they had better not unite together.
Such a covenant is the very least that the
exigency will permit; and as human nature
is constructed, even among theologians, it is
not quite certain that even this would an
swer the purpose. I object to, the basis of
the Committee, because in the well-known
circumstances to which it refers it is indefi
nite, and hence liable to almost any inter
pretation which party spirit might inspire.
Perhaps the Committee could not agree to a
more definite basis; and if
,so, then it is a
fair question whether they had better try to
agree at all. The simple Confession of
Vaith as a basis has failed to unite the two
sOlools ; and now,
if we are to have some
thikg added in the way of explanation, to
Prev‘nt the recurrence of this failure in the
event re-union, then let that something
be as de§ nite as words can make it.
6. The
tx"v ° indino• acts 0f1837, originally
enacted by &e Old School, and at no subse
quent period
'%isafErined, and always de
clared by I
the Ne 7 School to be acts of gross
ecclesiastical usultation and outrage are
left untouched in the-troposed plan of union.
They were the imme
t ll \e occasion of the
division. The assumptio powers on the
part of the General Assexo l,), involved in
these acts has never been 1-Aana,i. It re
mains on the record uncontrak% e d and un
changed; and there it will ren%n, unkfm
something more than the comttee pro
pose be done to change it. Thiq am apt
to think, will not be quite satisfactory to
New School Presbyterians, especially when
they remember that they differ somewhat
from their Old School brethren as to the
powers of the General Assembly. They
will naturally want some positive guarantee
incorporated into the constitution of the
Church, that the like assumption shall not
be repeated at any future time. This is a
question that ought to be settled beforehand
—not by indirection, but in language too
plain to admit of the slightest doubt as to its
meaning.
7. It is a very obvious fact that what
may be termed the tone and type of Presby
terianism in the two schools are not precise
ly the same. The one partakes more of the
Scotch spirit, and the other more of the New
England spirit. The one has been designa
ted as Scotch Presbyterianism, and the other
as American Presbyterianism. It is not
clear, by any means, that these two types,
without deciding the question of their rela
tive merits, will not, work better for the
glory of God and the edification of the
Church in the separate than they will in
the organically united state. Both certain
ly have done very well since
. the division ;
and whether they will do better in the state
of union is at least a matterof some doubt.
I certainly do not desire any union which
leaves the way open for conflict between
these two phases of Presbyterianism. The
phases are real; and whether they can be
harmoniously blended in one_ organism is a
point which at least admits of debate. If
they cannot be, as the history of the. past
would seem to indicate, then things had
better be left as they are.
8. What disposition will be made of the
property questions to be settled in the event
of union I am not sufficiently a' lawyer to de
cide. Yet it seems to me that these ques
tions will involve some difficulty. Take,
for example, the church-erection fund, now
held as a trust fund by trustees, under a
special act of incorporation, and laced un
der the care of a certain New School General
Assembly that met at Philadelphia, and also
under the care of all successive assemblies re
presenting the same constituency. This fund
was contributed by New School men, and
for New School purposes. Where then is
the power to change the ecclesiastical status
and relationship of this fund? This with
like questions to arise in the other branch
of the Church, and perhaps other property
questions to grow out of union, will demand
very grave consideration. Neither branch
should commit itself to union until both see
very clearly the end of the experiment.
The law-committee proposed may shed light
upon this subject; but until the light comes it
will be prudent to wait.
I have thus, in response to your request
and as concisely as possible, named some of
the difficulties-which have occurred to me
in respect to the proposzd.plan of union. I
am quite aware that the whole subject is as
yet in an inchoate state. Both Assemblies
have continued the joint committel direct
ing them to report, in 1868, any
don of the plan "they may deem desirable
in view of any new light that they may re
ceive during the year." It is to be hoped
that the subject will be frankly and thor
oughly discussed; that all the objections
will be carefully weighed; and that both
branches of the Presbyterian Church will
fully understand each other when they come
to the point of final action. It is just now,
as it will be unti_ settled, the great queStion
in the Presbyterian Church. • Both Assem
blies were eminently wise in simply accept
ing the reports of the joint committee and
remitting the whole question to both bran
;hes of the Church for " deliberate examina
tion." Perhaps the committee in their next
report, will see occasion to modify the plan.
Whatever may be the result, all good men
must rejoice in the Christian and fraternal
spirit which seems to he at the bottom of
this movement. This is as it should be. Yet,
whether it will be best for the two Presby
terian bodies to unite together upon the
terms as thus far indicated, or upon any
terms likely to be adopted—whether either
will by union improve its condition, or con
tribute more to the common cause—this, I
confess, is a point upon which I have many
doubts. Perhaps more reflection, or greater
progress in the movement,. will change this
opinion; yet such is my present light.
THE REUNION OF THE OLD AND NEW
SCHOOL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES.
This is a thing all devout Christians ought
to thank God for. It is a great event in the
history of the Church. But whilst we can
not but rejoice at the healing of the breach
in the Presbyterian church, our heart is
filled with sadness and sorrow at the widen
ing of the gap in our own. This division is
contrary to the true genius of the Lutheran
church. A few years ago we boasted that
the Lutheran church had never given rise
to any sect, that amid all the terrible con
flicts and revolutions through which she had
passed, she always righted herself; and in
the end - remained a unit. So we hope and
trust it will be again. Such is the good
sense, and piety of the church, her liberality
and the biblical and reasonable character of
her doctrines, that we cannot see how she
can divide, and remain in a divided state
even as long as our Presbyterian breth
ren were separated. There are some
points of resemblance between the Presby
terian separation and ours, though in other
respects the cases are widely different.
Both branches of the Presbyterian church
labored to build up the spiritual interests of
the Redeemer's Kingdom, both prayed and
labored for genuine revivals of religion.
The New School was not more earnest in
leading souls to Christ than their brethren
of the Old School. There was no tendency
in either branch of the church to ritualism
or Romanism. Trle Old School loved their
Confession of Faith, and they feared that
the least departure from it would fill the
church with heresy. The New School look-.
ed upon the confession in a different light.
They claimed the right to understand that
venerable document as it struck them and
to explain it accordingly. We are willing,
said the New School men, to receive the
confession of faith as we suppose its framers
intended it to be received. But the Old
Shool replied nay, you must receive it, and
understand it just as we do, or you cannot
be Presbyterians. If you do not receive it
precisely as we do, in an unqualified manner,
we will unchurch you and'you shall not be
Presbyterians—you have no right to call
yourselves by our name; we are the true
Presbyterians, and you have no right to
call yourselves Presbyterians. Is not this
the very position now taken by our Symbol
ical brethren. Do they not unlutheranize
us on precisely the same grounds ? Is not
the very existence of these two famous
confessions of faith,- viz: The Augsburg
Confession, made in 1530, and the Westmin
ster Confession, made in 1643, a strong pre
sumptive evidence that all creeds are but
imperfect documents, and that it is contrary
to the mind of Christ, and the dictates of
sound reason for a government or a church
to compel men to subscribe ex animo to arti
cles which in the end may turn out to be
wrong ? The New School, through its great
representative men Lyman Beecher and A.
Barnes, said, "we cannot think that the
Lord Jesus ever designed that the unity of
His church should consist in an entire uni
formity of doctrines or ceremonies, for uch
a unity as the human mind is constituted, is
an impossibility. We profess to understand
the meaning of God's word as well as those
pious and learned divines who formed the
confession in 1643, and we think we are
quite as honest and sincere in our. search
after truth as they were, and we think we
have as good a right to canvas their opinions
as they had the right to examine the confes
sions of those who had preceded them.
We contend that the Saviour has never
authorized, much less commanded, any set
of men however pious and learned, in any
age, to lay down any form of doctrine or
ceremony that must be received by all men
under the penalty of his displeasure. We
are willing to receive the confession as we
understand it, and you may do the same,
but we deny your right to compel us to re
ceive it in the same sense that you do. You
may separate from us, but you cannot drive
us out of the Presbyterian church, we will
be Presbyterian Christians in spite of you."
The wedge was driven in, and the Church
was split in two The men who so vigor
°ash- swung the mauls in riving the body of
Christ asunder, have nearly all gone to their
reward. For thirty years the two brandies
of this great and powerful church stood
apart. Either branch of this great Christian
family would have done honor to any Chris
tian denomination in the world.
ln'point of piety, learning, and pure bibli
cal discipline, and moral power, both these
branches of the Presbyterian church stand
out in bold and honorable relief, second to
no other church on earth. The Old School,
honest and sincere in her convictions, went
on "conquering and to conquer," and the
New School was not far behind. The New
School was somewhat smaller numerically,
but what she lacked in numbers she made
up in zeal and energy. Both branches of
this great Protestant church stands out
boldly for a true, living Christianity. Ex
perimental piety seems to be the polar star
of their efforts. We should all thank God
for the great influence, and the intellectual
and moral power of the Presbyterian etiurch.
The Presbyterian church is the great moral
bulwark of Protestantism. Puritanism was
once laughed at by churchmen, Romanism,
and Infidelity, but it quietly held on its way
and made itself a great power in the world.
It is true there are some things in the Pres
byterian system, which we as Lutherans do
not like, but it has so many good and com
mendable traits, those parts we do not ap
prove are entirely lost in the resplendent
glory of its good ones. Well, God in His wise
providence that permitted this great and
efficient church to separate thirty years ago,
and now, after the lapse of nearly the third
of a century, covering an entire generation
of men, the most of the instigators of the
division being dead, or having retired from
the active duties of the ministry, their suc
cessors having, perhaps, more liberality and
less sectarian bigotry, and being more fully
permeated into the spirit of Him who pray
ed that His disciples "might be one," are
now about to unite in the bonds of a great
Presbyterian brotherhood ! Thank God for
this, another evidence of progress in the
right direction. Oh, that our poor, weeping
and distracted, and dissevered. Lutheran
Zion would profit by the experience of the
Presbyterian church. If the Rev. C. G. Fin
ney, in 1837, could say that the Devils held
a jubilee in hell when the General Assembly
met, may we not now suppose that the an
gels of heaven rejoice over this contempla
ted Union ?
The last thirty years will constitute a
marked era in the history of the Church.
It will be remarkable for three things, viz :
1. The emancipation of Slavery in Russia,
the United States, Brazil, and some of the
West Indies. 2. The progress of the Gospel
in heathen lands, and the counter Reforma
tion, or the strong tendency of some of the
Protestant Churches towards a Romanistic
Ritualism.
In the first conflict the New School church
took an active part, and contributed not a
little to that glorious resnit. The Old School
was rather conservative. But now the work
is done, and both branches of the church can
unite in thanking God for what has been
done. Both branches of the church have
been active in extending the Redeemer's
Kingdom in Pagan lands, they have brought
their immense resources to bear on this work.
In the third conflict the two branches
have been true as steel to the principles of
Protestantism. Geneva, since the days of
Calvin, has been a thorn in the side of Po
pery, and so all the streams of Protestant
Christianity that have issued from that re
nowned city, have been opposed to Popery
in every form and shape. There has not
been and is not now the least tendency in
the Presbyterian church towards Ritualism.
Would to God, we could say as much for our
dear Lutheran chuch. But I suppose God
intends to permit us to complete the separa
tion that has been commenced, and after a
while we will all be heartily ashamed of our
selfishness and dogmatism, or if we do not
live to see that day, our children, like the
Presbyterians, will in the course of time,
see the folly of their fathers, and with a more
enlightened zeal, pray and labor to unite
the church their fathers so unnecessarily
divided.
Twenty years ago, a good Presbyterian
brother said to me, when I sympathized
with him on the painful divisions in his
church, "your.time too must come, your
church, like ours, will have to pass through
the fires of controversy." Well, it has come.
The Presbyterians have passed through the
Red Sea, and are now rejoicing in their quiet
way, on the banks of deliverance, whilst
we are just plunging into the turbulent
waters ! May the good Lord help us through!
We need much piety, grace and humility to
pass safely through this terrible ordeal.
May the Lord give us grace and wisdom to
do that which will be well-pleasing in• His
sight. "_Domine svecurre nobis visceribus com
motus super nos."—R.W. in, Lutheran Observer.
Zadurtiormtitto.
This is a personal in
vitation to the reader to
examine our new styles
of FINE CLOTHING, Ns
eimere Suits for $l6,
and Black Suits fors22.
Finer Suits, all prices
up to $75.
WANAMAKER t BROWN,
OAK HALL,
Southeast corner of
SIXTH & MARKET STS
SILVER TIPS.
Bare you seen the new Silver Tipped Shoes for ehildren I They
here ell the utility of copper, and are highly ornamental. Applied
to the most genteel shoes made.: apr2.s-2m
Elliptic Hooky
LOCI-STITCH SEWING MACHINE
MANUFACTURED BY
Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co.
Embraces all the attachments of their other well-known Ma
chine, with many peculiar to itself, and In all the requirements
of a
Family Sewing .llfaeltine,
Is the most perfect of any in nse
The following extract from the report of the Committee on Sew
ing Machines at the New York State Fair, 1866, gives a condensed
statement of the merits and excellencies claimed fur this machine:
"We. the Committee on Sewing Machines, after a careful and
thorough investigation into the respective merits of the variou.
machines submitted for examination, find the Elliptic Lock-Stitch
Sewing Machine to be superior to all others in the tollowing points,
namely :
Simplicity and Thoroughness of Mechanical Construction.
Ease of Operation and Management.
Noiselessness and Rapidity of Movement.
Beauty, Strength, and Elasticity of Stitch.
Variety and Perfection of Attachment, and Range of Work.
Compactness and Beauty of Model and Finish.
Adaptation to material of any thickness, by an Adjustable Feed-
Par, and in the
Unequalled Precision with which it executes the Lock-Stitch, by
means of the Elliptic Hook: and we therefore award it the FIRST
PREMIUM, as the
HEST FAMILY SEWING-MACHINE,
and also, for the above re Isms, the FIRST PREMIUM RS the
BEST DOUBLETEIREAD SEWING-MACHINE."
C. E. P HECTOR. MOFFATT, Committee':
Agents wanted wherever not already established. Send for cir
cular to KEEN & WALMSLEY.
General Agents for Elliptic Sewing Machine Co.,
For Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey.
may2-ly 920 Arch Street, Philadelphia.
$28.80 gentlemen,PF, RDA Y A a g p e l n e
a t s s
a w n a t n
and t ed l h a o d n i e o s r
n e i n ) <
e l
business. For particulars, address A. D. BOWMAN
& CO., 48 Broad Street, New York. (Clip out and
return this notice.) jel3-3m
SUNDAY SCHOOL BOOKS.
The Largest and Best Selected Assort
ment of
Sunday-School Books and Requisites,
SOLD AT THE LOWEST PRICES,
BY
PERKINPINE & HIGGINS,
56. North, _Fourth Street,
Philadelphia.
Catalogue No. 3 containing a list of thousands of
volumes, sent to any address, on application.
June 21 lm
W!L H. MORGAN'S
PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY
GILT FRAME MANUFACTORY,
Nos. 142 and 144 North Ninth St., Philadelphia.
SKYLIGHT ON GROUND FLOOR.
• r . tyl • nd ur factored at '
JOSHUA COWPLAND,
Manufacturer and Dealer in
Looking Glasses ,
PICTURE FRAMES,
AND
Large Ornamental Gilt and Walnut Mirrors.
No. 53 South. Fourth Street, Philadelphia.
lIKNRY Y. COWPLAND. O. CONNOR COWPLAND.
my23-ly
J. Sr. V.
NO. 736 Market Street, S. E. corner of Eighth,
PHILADELPHIA..
Manufacturers and Dealers in
BOOTS, SHOES, TRUNKS, CARPET BAGS AND
VALISES of every variety and style.
203