w\"l;n ^ne. Cu\Tnoe.T\c^■r^d 
 
 b 
 
 y 
 
 B.B.\YaT-4^-e\(i 
 
 /- t 
 
 ■^);gmg%^ 
 
 BX 
 
 8976 
 .W37 
 1904 
 c.2 
 
 1 
 
\1. 2.Z.0Z 
 
 •U 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 % 
 
 Presented by 
 
 pTet)\£ie-n't \ (PvX.r 
 
 onrv 
 
 BX 8976 .W37 1904 
 Warfield, Benjamin 
 
 Breckinridge, 1851-1921. 
 The proposed union with th« 
 
I KXTKACTED FR<_)M THE I'KINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW FOB APRIL, 1904. 
 
 / 
 
 The Proposed Union with the 
 Cumberland Presbyterians 
 
 V 
 
 By Benjamin B. Warfield 
 
 Professor in Princeton Seminary. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 MacCalla & Co., Incorporated 
 1904. 
 
/a.S-^.oS", 
 
 1^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Presented by '\\-&£>\0\&-<-\\- VcAWovn 
 
 Division 
 S(fc-tio>i 
 
THE PROPOSED UNION WITH THE CUMBERLAND 
 PRESBYTERIANS. 
 
 The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, meeting at Los Angeles, Cal., in May, 1903, received 
 from a number of its Presbyteries overtures " relating to closer coopera- 
 tion or vmion with sister denominations." In response to these over- 
 tiu-es it appointed a Committee "to consider the whole subject of 
 cooperation, confederation and consolidation with other Churches." 
 This Committee was instructed "to enter into correspondence with 
 any Churches of the Reformed family with whom, in the judgment of 
 the Committee, such correspondence would be likely to promote closer 
 relations"; and "to report to the next Assembly such plans and meas- 
 ures as seem to them wise, proper and profitable for the advancement 
 of fraternal relations, for the increase of harmonious work, and, if God 
 shall open the way, and incline the hearts of the Churches thereto, for 
 the reunion of those who hold the same faith and order in the service 
 of Christ." No doubt the Committee, under the guidance of its able 
 and energetic Chairman, has been diligently prosecuting throughout 
 the year the somewhat extensive task coumiittcd to it. It is to be 
 sincerely hoped that it will be al^lc to report to the approaching 
 Assembly much progress in the great work of drawing more closely 
 together in the service of Christ those who hold the same faith and 
 order. Meanwhile, however, we arc incompletely informed of these 
 labors. 
 
 What absorbs our attention at the moment is the result of the 
 conference of the Committee with a similar Committee appointed by 
 the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, meeting 
 at Nashville. This Committee " on Presbyterian fraternity and union ," 
 was appointed, it seems, on the same day (May 27) on which oiu own 
 Committee was appointed. A notification of its appointment was 
 sent at once to our Assembly, and an appropriate reply to this notifi- 
 cation was returned, implying that consideration of the general subject 
 of "Presbyterian fraternity and union" was included in the proposed 
 work of our Committee.* During the year these two Committees 
 
 * Cf. Minutes of Presbyterian Church for 1903, pp. 90, 123, 169. 
 
have been in repeated conference, but the details of the conferences 
 held between them have not j^et been fully made known to the publir. 
 The ultimate resultf? reached, however, as drawn up at a joint meeting 
 of the Committees at St. Louis during a part of the week closing on 
 February 20, have been published. These results include a "Plan of 
 lleunion," certain "Concurrent Declarations," and some "Recommend- 
 ations." These the two Committees have agreed to present concurrently 
 to the two Assemblies at their approaching meetings; and on the 
 adoption of them by the two Churches union between the Presbyte- 
 rian Church in the United States of America and the Cumberland 
 Presbyterian Church -nail be consummated. 
 
 As these documents have been quite generally printed in the news- 
 papers, it does not seem necessary to reprint them here in their 
 entirety. The most important thing to observe about them is that the 
 actual basis of union proposed is very brief, clear and simple. It is 
 embodied in the following statement which forms the heart of the 
 "Plan of Union:" 
 
 " The union shall be effected on the doctrinal basis of the Confession of Faith 
 of tlie Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, as revised in 1903, 
 and of its other doctrinal and ecclesiastical Standards ; and the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testaments shall be acknowledged as the inspired Word of God, 
 the only infallible rule of faith and practice " 
 
 This constitutes the entire "basis of union," into which nothing 
 else enters: and it is declared that when this basis of union has been 
 adopted by the two Chm-ches in a constitutional way, "then the 
 same shall be of binding force, and both Assemblies shall take action 
 accordingly." 
 
 As, however, there are matters which require adju.stment on the ac- 
 complishment of union, and concerning which it is highly desirable 
 that there shall be a previous good understanding, the Committees 
 propose that the two Assemblies adopt a series of eight "Concurrent 
 Declarations," providing for such adjustments. These adjustments do 
 not enter into the qua of the union: but each of them may fairly be 
 considered a sine qua non. They arc in general mere matters of course, 
 and call for no special remark. But certain ambiguities in them raise 
 questions and will require explanations. We are moved to inquire, 
 for example, into the intention and effect of the two provisos attached 
 to the section dealing ^dth institutions of learning. Are the Cumber- 
 land institutions to have liberty to withdraw from the direct control of 
 the courts of the united Church, wliile the Presbyterian institutions 
 are not to enjoy this Uberty? For the present we leave such questions, 
 however, to one side, with the simple remark that if the "Concurrent 
 Declarations" are to .serve their purposed end of bringing about a good 
 understanding as a preparation for the union, there will be need of 
 some elucidation of theii- meaning in more matters than one. 
 
 Under the head of "Recommendations" an additional sine qua non 
 
seems to be added to those included in the "Concurrent Declara- 
 tions." For though the matter here alluded to is put forward 
 merely as a "recommendation," it is subsequently included in the 
 enumeration of those things which "shall have been adopted in their 
 entirety" before "this entire plan of miion shall be operative." It 
 is not clear what force the adjective "entire" here has. But it 
 is clear that this "recommendation" involves a matter of some import- 
 ance, which demands careful and prudent handhng. Its object is to 
 provide in the united Church for what have been called "race Presby- 
 teries." Its terms are not mandatory but permissive: though the 
 query may possibly arise whether the permission is intended to be 
 given to the stronger or to the weaker "race." 
 
 A prominent feature of the secondary documents remains to be 
 mentioned. There is incorporated into the " Concurrent Declarations " 
 a comparatively long section in which certain statements are made 
 relative to the faith of the contracting Churches. As this section may 
 be supposed to have some explanatory value, and it is not always 
 either very lucidly or happily expressed, so that it may be difficult to 
 abstract it accurately, we give it here in full. 
 
 "In adopting the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, as revised in 1903, as a Basis of Union, it is mutually recog- 
 nized that such agreement now exists between tlie systems of doctrine contained in 
 the Confessions of Faith of the two Churches as to warrant this union — a union 
 honoring ahl^e to both. Mutual acknowledgment also is made of the teaching 
 and defense of essential evangelical doctrine held in common by these Churches, 
 and of the divine favor and blessing that have made this common faith 
 and service effectual. It is also recognized that liberty of belief exists by virtue 
 of the provisions of the Declaratory Statement, which is part of the Confession of 
 Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and which 
 states that 'the ordination vow of ministers, ruling elders and deacons, as set 
 forth in the From of Government, requires the reception and adoption of the 
 Confession of Faith, only as containing the system of doctrine taught in the 
 Holy Scriptures.' This liberty is specifically Secured by the Declaratory State- 
 ment, as to Chapter III and Chapter X, section 3, of the Confession of Faith. It 
 is recognized also that the doctrinal deliverance contained in the Brief Statement 
 of the Reformed Faith , adopted in 1902, by the General Assembly of the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America, 'for a better understanding of 
 our doctrinal beliefs,' reveals a doctrinal agreement favorable to reunion." 
 
 These statements do not in any way condition the basis of union, 
 wliich is and i-emains solely (to speak briefly) the doctrinal and ecclesi- 
 astical Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
 America. Their fimction seems to be only to "ease the soul" of our 
 Cumberland Presbyterian brethren in acceding to this basis of miion. 
 Their gist appears to be that the Committee representing the Cumber- 
 land Presbyterian Church finds a sufficient doctrinal agreement 
 between the two Churches to warrant them in recommending their 
 Church to unite with ours, and suflficient liberty allowed by our terms of 
 subscription to warrant them in recommending their Church to unite- 
 
6 
 
 with ours on the basis of our Confession, adopted bj^ means of our 
 formula. It is, of course, verj^ gratifying to us to learn that this is 
 the case ; and we shall not easily or soon forget the generosity of the 
 act. ■ But we cannot profess to think that what it is so well to say has 
 been in this section well said. We feel no necessity laid upon us, it is 
 true, to enter into a detailed criticism of the language of statements 
 having so personal a reference, and managing on the whole, perhaps, 
 to convey their sense. But one or two points require explicit men- 
 tion to avoid the possibility of serious misapprehensions. We con- 
 tent ourselves with a bare mention of them at this point, since it will 
 be necessary to advert to them with some emphasis later. It would not 
 be true to say that the systems of doctrine contained in the Confes- 
 sions of Faith of the two Churches agree: though it may be true 
 that systems of doctrine not seriously out of agreement with 
 each other are widely believed in the two Chiu-ches. It would not be 
 true to say that the liberty allowed by the formula by which we 
 accept the Confession is at all increased by the Declaratory State- 
 mant : though no doubt that liberty is reasserted in the Declaratorj-- 
 Statement. It would not be true to say that either the Declaratory 
 Statement or the whole mass of the revision accomphshed in 1903 in 
 any way or to any degree modifies our doctrinal system: though it 
 may possibly be true that some elements of truth not always recog- 
 nized as provided for in our doctrinal system are emphasized in it. It 
 woiUd not be true to say that the "Brief Statement" in any way con- 
 ditions the obligation resting on all office-bearers of the Church to 
 hold, teach and defend the total system of doctrine taught in our Stand- 
 ards — among which the "Brief Statement" has no place: though it 
 may possibly be true that it reveals the doctrines most insisted upon 
 by many of the pastors of the Church in their ordinary preaching. 
 
 Such, then, are the terms of union proposed to their respective 
 Assemblies by the two Committees. What are we to think of them? 
 It would be as idle as it would be disingenuous to affect to dissemble 
 our natural gratification that it has been fomid possible to propose 
 that the miion shall take place on the basis of our own doctrinal and 
 ecclesiastical Standards, "pure and simple." From our point of view 
 this, of course, simplifies matters vastly. But it would be as disingenu- 
 ous as it would be idle to affect to dissemble the fact that e^•en so we 
 have misgivings — misgivings growing out of the nature of the case 
 and fostered by some of the phenomena of the proposed terms of union 
 themselves. Utter frankness becomes us in all negotiations of this kind; 
 and in the present case this frankness is made especially incumbent by 
 the generosity of our Cumberland brethren. It would be a poor requital 
 of the generosity of brethren who have agreed to come to us on terms 
 presumably peculiarly agreeable to us, if we left matters unexplained 
 which, if thoroughly imderstood , might modify their action ; and which, 
 
therefore, if left unexplained, might place them in a position of per- 
 manent distress. The last of the proposed "Concurrent Declara- 
 tions" calls on the united Churches to study the things that make 
 for peace, and in order to that, " to guard against all needless and offen- 
 sive references to the causes which have divided us, and to avoid the 
 revival of past issues." There is but one way to secm-e obedience to 
 such an exliortation : as there is but one way to justify giving such an 
 exhortation. The causes that have divided us must be removed, and 
 the issues that have separated us must be made really past. If the 
 causes that have divided us remain in action and the old issues still 
 live, it is vain to suppose that those causes Vill not continue to divide 
 us or that still present issues can possibly be treated as past. If 
 the terms of union proposed imply the removal of the causes 
 that have hitherto divided us and the antiquating of the old issues, 
 they should be accepted by all with acclamation. If they do not, they 
 can produce only an ''entangling aUiance" and no real union: they 
 can only tempt us to " build a great house around a divided family." 
 Our first duty in the premises is, clearlj', to scrutinize the terms of 
 imion which are proposed, with a view to discovering whether they 
 really imply the removal of the old "bones of contention." 
 
 At first sight, certainly, the terms of union proposed seem to promise 
 exceedingly well for the removal of dividing causes. They reduce in 
 brief to this simple and prima facie effective provision : that the C\im- 
 berland Presbyterian Church adopt as its own the doctrinal and 
 ecclesiastical Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, and thus put itself practically upon our ground. 
 Any misgivings we may feel must turn, therefore, on doubt as to the 
 real efficiency of a simple adoption by our Cumberland bi-ethren of 
 our doctrinal and ecclesiastical Standards to remove the causes which 
 have hitherto divided the Churches and to antiquate the issues that 
 have separated them. Studying that utmost frankness which seems 
 demanded by the occasion, we shall proceed to indicate the nature 
 of some of these misgivings. 
 
 It is not oljvious to us, in the first place, that simple adoption of our 
 doctrinal and ecclesiastical Standards on the part of our Cumberland 
 brethren will remove all the causes that have liitherto divided the 
 Churches and antiquate all the issues that have been raised between 
 them, because it is not clear to us that all the differences which have 
 hitherto di\'ided us — or ought still to divide us — reduce to differences 
 of doctrine and polity. 
 
 We are quite aware that there is abroad a zeal for the external 
 union or, as it is now fashionable to call it, "organic union", 
 of Churches, which would fain make light of all obstacles to miion 
 except perhaps (at the most) irreducible antagonism in doc- 
 trine and polity. But we cannot, for ourselves, help regarding this 
 
8 
 
 degree of zeal as excessive. And we are not a little strengthened in 
 this opinion by the observation that, if we are to judge on the princi- 
 ple that actions speak louder than words, it is not an opinion pecuUar 
 to ourselves. It does not appear, indeed, that any one has practically 
 the least intention of surrendering anything he holds very valuable to 
 promote the cause of external Church union. Men may talk senti- 
 mentally (because without due regard to the apphcation of their words) 
 of the sin of "rending the seamless robe of Christ" and the duty of 
 "healing the woimds of our Lord's body": but they commonly have 
 reference in this particularly to the sin and duty of others. There 
 lies hidden away somewhere among the roots of action a saving leaven 
 of common sense which comes into operation when the union proposed 
 involves a sacrifice on their own part of sometliing they esteem of high 
 worth. In prelatic Churches, to be sure, there may be some logical 
 justification offered for the subordination of other interests to that of 
 "unity" — if indeed those Churches really believe that the Church is fun- 
 damentally an external body, determined by external marks, and organ- 
 ized under external forms, outside of which there is no Church of 
 God. But surely those who know that God's Church consists funda- 
 mentally of His elect children and, in its external manifestation, of the 
 congregatio sanctorum, should be able to remember that the unity for 
 which our Lord prayed in His high-priestly prayer and to which we 
 are exhorted in the apostohc epistles is no artificial unity of external 
 organization, but is rooted in sainthness and is advanced only by the 
 advance of Christians in saintliness with all that sainthness involves, 
 in respect both of faith and life. Least of all should they be able to 
 believe that any true unity can be induced by neglecting differences 
 that really divide and stifling tendencies that clog harmonious coopera- 
 tion in common duties. A story is told of a rustic who, wishing a hive 
 of bees, caught every bee that visited his flowers and shut them up 
 together in a box, merely to discover only too quickly the difference 
 between an aggregation and an organism. It were surely better to 
 have two hives — or fifty — and honey : than one hive and no honey. 
 
 In very truth separate denominations have something like the same 
 right of existence as separate congregations, and may be not merel.\' 
 defended but advocated on very much the same classes of grounds. 
 Even mere convenience in administration may properly be given de- 
 cisive weight in the matter. "Organic union" of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America with the Reformed Church of 
 Hungary, or even with the United Free Church of Scotland, or even 
 with the contiguous Presbyterian Church in the Dominion of Canada, 
 would have its difficulties on tliis ground alone. And surely it will not 
 be contended that the only separation between Churches which will 
 justify their remaining distinct organizations is a separation in mere 
 space ; or that the chief difference that can divide Churches is difference; 
 in the civil government imder which they enjoy property rights and 
 
9 
 
 police protection. We heartily agree that differences as to the nature 
 of the Gospel — the very Gospel which it is the mission of the Church to 
 proclaim — constitute the primary ground of righteous separation. 
 Differences here can never be minimized without treason to the very 
 life of that Church of God (which, we are told, is the pillar and ground 
 of the truth) that we profess to be serving in seeking its unification. 
 ,\nd next to doctrinal differences, no doubt, differences in pohty, or the 
 organization of the Church for the preservation of its life and the per- 
 formance of its fimctions, should take rank. But it does not appear 
 that there are not many other differences which will not merely excuse 
 but justify, and not merely justify but demand, the separate existence 
 of denominations with an insistence proportionate in each instance to 
 the value of the interests at stake. No congregation, for example — to 
 revert to a suggestive illustration already hinted — would be justified in 
 concluding a union with a neighboring congregation, though of the same 
 faith and pohty — no matter what additional eclat or worldly advantage 
 came to it thereby — if thereby any special work it seemed called to 
 accomplish in the field of the Lord were closed to it, or even rendered 
 more difficult successfully to prosecute. Similarly it were surely a 
 grave mistake, to use no stronger word, for any two denominations 
 to enter into a imion which threatened to handicap either of them in 
 any special mission which seemed to be committed to it in the world. 
 The work of the Lord is more important than any union of Churches. 
 
 Are there no differences of this relatively secondary — but never- 
 theless possibly decisive — sort between the Cumberland Presbyterian 
 Church and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 
 such as demand at least the most serious consideration when a union of 
 the two bodies comes up for discussion? Differences, perhaps, in tra- 
 ditions and that spirit which grows out of traditions; differences of 
 training and that adaptation that grows out of training; differences 
 in modes of work and the habits that grow out of long-settled modes of 
 work ; differences in theories of conduct and those principles of action 
 in deahng with the problems that face the Churches of our day and land 
 which are the outgrowth of these theories: differences, in fine, of mani- 
 fest mission, opportunities and facilities for special kinds of work, of 
 providential equipment and call to particular tasks? That no such 
 differences exist between Churches of such diverse origins and histories 
 is unlikely : that none of those that exist are of sufficient significance to 
 engage attention when a union between the Churches falls imder 
 discussion is incredible : that some of them are of the highest import- 
 ance is notorious. One or two such differences receive some mention, 
 more or less full, in the subsidiary conditions of union, adverted to in 
 the "Concui-rent Declarations" and "Recommendations." Whether 
 they are dealt with there with wisdom and determined satisfactorily 
 will no doubt become a matter of discussion in the debates of the 
 coming year. Others lie in the background, out of which they must 
 
10 
 
 surely sooner or later emerge. We have no intention of entering upon 
 a discussion of them here. Enough if this bare general reference 
 explains and perhaps so far justifies the misgivings we have expressed 
 as to whether a simple adoption of common Standards, doctrinal and 
 ecclesiastical, provides a sufficient basis of union between the two 
 Churches. If any of these differences affect seriously our fiu-nishing 
 for doing the work of the Lord or oiu: well-considered modes of prose- 
 cuting that work, they become obstacles to union of very considerable 
 gravity. It is better that the work of the Lord should be done than 
 that the Chiu-ches should unite; and we surely ought to stop at the 
 threshold of a proposition looking to union to consider very carefully 
 whether the union proposed will really advance the work of the Lord 
 which the two denominations are set separately to do. 
 
 But in the frank statement of our misgivings we must go a step 
 further. We have deep misgivings whether a simple adoption of our 
 doctrinal and ecclesiastical Standards by our Cumberland brethren 
 affords adequate assurance of that unity of faith between them and us 
 which is the indispensable prerequisite of union. 
 
 It is distressingly easy for signatories of differing traditions to 
 attach differing interpretations to documents they sign in common. 
 It has accordingly not been the custom of our Chiu'ch to act 
 on the assumption that its internal unity and peace would be 
 sufficiently assured by willingness on the part of those whom it 
 wovild fain receive into its ministry to signify their acceptance 
 of its doctrinal and ecclesiastical Standards. Ordinary prudence 
 and all experience alike have taught it that the same documents 
 may be very variously interpreted by different persons, who look 
 at them from different angles and out of the mists of different kinds 
 and degrees of education ; and that it is therefore not safe to commit the 
 great interests put under its charge to the chances of such misunder- 
 standings as must necessarily arise imder a system of simple subscrip- 
 tion. It has therefore felt in duty bound to take adequate measures 
 to make svn-e that those who signify their acceptance of its Standards 
 attach the same sense to those Standards, and attach the same meaning 
 to the formula by which they are adopted and to the act of adopting 
 them, which itself does. It has accordingly jealously 'retained the 
 final decision upon the acceptability of every act of subscription in 
 the hands of its own courts, upon which it has laid the duty of ascer- 
 taining, by means of examination or some other competent mode of 
 inquiry, both the Imowledge of the truth possessed by applicants to 
 its ministry and the interpretation they put on the Standards they 
 propose to adopt. Even when one of its own ministers is merely trans- 
 ferred from one of its Presbyteries to another, the right of the receiving 
 court to inquire anew into his knowledge and "soundness," as it has 
 come to be popularly spoken of, has been steadily maintained and re- 
 
peatedly exercised. And when the applicant has come from another 
 denomination, and especially from a distant land, this right has been 
 transformed into a dut}'. Only so, the Church has always thought, 
 and found, can it safeguard its own unity and secure its own 
 internal peace — preserve itself from steadily building up merely "a 
 great house over a divided family." 
 
 Such being the settled practice of the Chm-ch, founded in wise 
 considerations of duty and supported in its prudence by long 
 experience, can we be blamed for feeling the deepest misgiving 
 when we are called upon to face a proposition to admit into 
 the ministry of the Church a body of nearly two thousand ministers 
 at once — and they, formed under widely different traditions from our 
 own — without any of the safeguards which have been considered 
 requisite in the incorporation of single ministers? Surely such a propo- 
 sition, as the French saj^, donnc furicuscment a pe?iscr. On a prima facie 
 view it looks like a revolutionary proceeding, amounting to little less 
 than a stultification of our entire history and our whole system. If such 
 a proceeding is safe in the jaresent case, one would think it would be a 
 fortiori safe in the incorporation of single ministers : if it is felt to be un- 
 safe in their cases, is it not a fortiori unsafe in this much greater instance? 
 The question that is brought to issue here is nothing other than whether 
 the internal unity and peace of a Church is sufficiently secured by a 
 bare, formal acceptance by all its ministers of common Standards: 
 or whether it is not requisite to take adequate measures to assure a 
 common understanding of the Standards accepted. It is no reflection 
 upon our Cumberland iDrethren to suppose them possibly liable to the 
 same misapprehensions to which other men are found to be certainly 
 liable ; and to ask of them some such assurances as are uniformly asked 
 from others. And surely they are as much interested as we are in mak- 
 ing it clear that the conmion Standards, under the protection of which 
 we alike propose to live in case the contemplated imion is consummated, 
 are understood alike by us all. Othenvise we shall be just as dis- 
 tmited under them as we were before we go through the — in that 
 case meaningless — form of establishing them as the bond of our union 
 and the pledge of our peace. 
 
 It is barely possible that the minds of some readers may revert at 
 this point to the terms on which the Old and New School branches 
 of the Presbyterian Church came together, imder the impression that 
 there was created by that transcation a precedent for union between 
 Churches on the basis of bare adoption of common Standards, "pure 
 and simple." A moment's thought will convince us, however, that 
 no analogy can lie bet«-een that case and the one which is at present 
 engaging our attention. The Old and New School Churches were ad- 
 herents of common Standards. Every office-bearer in both Churches 
 alike had received his commission as an office-bearer only upon adop- 
 tion of those common Standards under the same safeguards of exami- 
 
12 
 
 nation and approval by Church courts organized under the same sanc- 
 tions and operating under the same fundamental laws. Each instance 
 of adoption of the Standards was in both Churches alike a tested and 
 approved subscription, in the reception of which safeguards to preserve 
 internal unity and peace had been observed. The union of the two 
 Churches on the basis of their common Standards, "pure and simple," 
 involved in these circumstances little more than a recognition on the 
 part of each of the honesty and due care of the sister Church in carrying 
 out provisions common to both. There was no question in the con- 
 summation of this union of the "adoption" of common Standards: 
 it was a union between two Churches already organized under the 
 same Standards. And though some question did arise as to the 
 common understanding by the two Churches of these common Stand- 
 ards and the meaning attached by each of them to the act of subscrip- 
 tion, the materials for arriving at a good understanding on these 
 matters became rapidly too abimdant for them to stand in the way of 
 consummating a union on the basis of the Standards common to both. 
 In all these particulars the proposed union with the Cumberland 
 Presbyterian Church presents conditions diametrically opposite. It 
 is in thefact, indeed, thus thrown into prominence, that our strongest 
 misgivings as to the sufSciency of a sim]3le adoption of our Standards 
 on their part as a basis of union are rooted. All the antecedents of our 
 Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, so far from going to assure us that 
 in adopting our Standards they put the same sense upon them and on 
 the act of adopting them which we do, combine rather to raise the grav- 
 est doubts in our mind whether it is not necessarily only upon some 
 serious misapprehension of the sense of the Standards and the meaning 
 of the act of adopting them that thej' can bring themselves to adopt 
 them at all. 
 
 For the fact above all other facts deserving our most careful attention 
 is that our Cumberland Presbyterian larethren do not come to us out 
 of the sky, as it were, with no past behind them, with no present 
 accompanying them — with only a future lying before them and us. 
 They come to us with a history behind them, an eminently consistent 
 history, through which — by means of which — they ha-\'e become what 
 they are; and it is difficult to think — it is difficult to believe they 
 wish us to think — that in coming to us they mean to repudiate 
 this history. And they come to us with a Creed in their hands 
 and, to all appearances, up to the moment of their coming to 
 us. with this Creed in their hearts: and it is difficult for us to 
 think — or to believe that thej^ wish us to think — that in com- 
 ing to us they mean to disavow this Creed. We cannot profess to be 
 unacquainted with the nature of this history, or to be ignorant of the 
 character of this Creed; and we certainly cannot reproach our Cum- 
 berland 'Presbj'terian brethren throughout the whole past, at least, 
 
13 
 
 witJi seeking to hide from us cither the one or the other. But the 
 facts cannot possibly be blinked that the whole history of the Cumber- 
 land Presbyterian Church from its foundation up to the present mo- 
 ment has been a protest — sometimes a violent and unmeasured protest, 
 at all times a steady and unbending protest — against our historical 
 position as a Calvinistic Church: that the entire Creed of the Cumbcr- 
 lanil Presbyterian Church is a protest — a clear, sharp and uncom- 
 promising protest — against the system of doctrine embodied in our 
 Calvinistic Confession of Faith. How, then, is it possible to hear that 
 our Cumberland brethren are prepared to unite with us on the basis 
 of our doctrinal and ecclesiastical Standards, "pure and simple," 
 witliout being filled with misgivings as to the meaning which they 
 may be attaching to this act? It is very certain that the adoption 
 of our Standards, "pure and simple," means the repudiation 
 of that whole element of their history which has been a continuous 
 protest against Calvinism in doctrine and life; means a distinct 
 disavowal of their hitherto professed doctrinal system as embodied 
 in the Confession of Faith at present in use among them. But the 
 doubt rises persistently in our minds, and will not be stilled, whether 
 they fully apprehend this in proposing to adopt our Standards; 
 whether they may not be acting \mder some fatal misapprehension of 
 the meaning of their act. If tliis be in any degree true, it supplies, 
 on the one hand, an astonishingly clear and forceful illustration of 
 the danger of committing important interests to the bare adoption of 
 articles of faith without the exercise of due care to secure that they 
 be apprehended and adopted in the same sense; and it imposes, on the 
 other hand, a duty on us, greater than which we have no duty in the 
 premises — the duty of undeceiving our Cumberland brethren in a 
 matter of so great importance both to them and to us. 
 
 This duty is rendered especially imperative by the occurrence of 
 a somewhat obscure clause in the first of the "Concurrent Declara- 
 tion.?" proposed to the Churches by the Committees. In this clause 
 the Cliurches are asked to declare that "it is mutually recognized that 
 such agreement now exists between the systems of doctrine contained 
 in the Confessions of Faith of the two Churches as to warrant this 
 imion." Precisely what is declared by this clause to be recognized it is 
 no doubt somewhat difficult to determine. What, for instance, is the 
 reference of the word "now"? Is it to the future, so that what is 
 declared is that a sufficient measure of harmony already exists to war- 
 rant union, and therefore no further waiting and no further efforts to 
 induce hai-mony are necessary? Or is its reference to the past, so that 
 the meaning is that by some recent change — say, for example, the revi- 
 sion of our Confession in 1903 — a sufficient measure of harmony to war- 
 rant union has been at length induced? Aird how shall we determiiie 
 what the measure of harmony is that is recognized by the Committees 
 and is to be recognized by the Churches as necessary before union is 
 
14 
 
 warranted? Certainly not mere community in teaching and defending 
 "essential evangelical doctrine," we are glad to observe. For that the 
 two Chiirches are united in common devotion to essential "evangelical 
 doctrine" is made in the next clause the subject of additional recogni- 
 tion : "mutual acknowledgment also is made." We say we are glad to 
 observe this, because if what the Churches were asked to recognize were 
 that community in "essential evangelical doctrine" constitutes sufK- 
 cient agreement to warrant union, it woidd be perhaps the most remark- 
 able recommendation ever made to a Church by a joint Committee. 
 For in that case the recommendation would amount to nothing less than 
 this: that the Presbyterian Chm-ch in the United States of America 
 should by a mere declaration of the Assembly vacate its entire doctrinal 
 position, entrenched as that doctrinal position nevertheless is in doc- 
 trinal Standards unalterable save by a long and complicated consti- 
 tutional process ; and that, at the very moment when these Standards 
 are being "adopted" as the bond of union between two contracting 
 Churches. 
 
 It is so clearly idtra vires for the Assembly to declare in such a 
 I deliverance that the Standards are to be taken in this I'educed sense, 
 and such a declaration would be so clearly a brutimi julmen, that 
 , it would be impossible to believe that the Committees intended to 
 I imply by this confused and confusing clause that the agreement of the 
 1 two Confessions in evangelicalism is sufficient agreement to warrant 
 union, even had we not the subsequent clause to forbid the imposition 
 of this sense upon it. It must be confessed, however, that it is not 
 clear that any deeper agreement exists between the two Confessions, 
 which we are here apparently recommended to declare to agree suffi- 
 ciently to warrant the union of the two Churches professing their 
 respective faiths by their mediation. Possibly there has been a slip 
 of the pen in the framing of this clause, and what is intended to be 
 recognized is only such an agreement in faith between the two Churches 
 as to warrant union, rather than any agreement "between the sj^stems 
 of doctrine contained in the Confessions of Faith of the two Churches." 
 Meanwhile it must be exceedingly evident that as a measure to produce 
 a good understanding this section of the "Concurrent Declarations" 
 is foredoomed to the saddest failure ; and that it is exceedingly liable 
 to interpretations which make it ask the Churches to propound declara- 
 tions that are directly contrary to the facts. It would be directly 
 contrary to the fact to declare that an agreement between the systems 
 of doctrine contained in the two Confessions so far as this, viz., that 
 both teach the essential doctrines of evangelical religion, is sufficient 
 agreement to warrant miion. The Presbyterian Clunxh in the 
 United States of America, by the mere fact of maintaining its dis- 
 tinctively Calvinistic Standards and by them separating itself from 
 other evangelical but non-Cah'inistic bodies — Lutheran, Wcsleyan 
 and the like — bears constant testimony to the contrary: and has 
 
15 
 
 entrenched this testimony behind elaborate constitutional safeguards, 
 which no declarative act of any Assembly can destroy or weaken. 
 And it would be equally directly contrary to the fact to declare that 
 any deeper agreement than is involved in the common teaching of 
 "essential evangelical doctrine" "exists between the systems of 
 doctrine contained in the Confessions of Faith of the two Churches." 
 
 The possibility of imposing such intolerable interpretations upon 
 this unfortunate clause, quite apart from any question whether either 
 is its intended meaning — as surely neither can be — renders it impera- 
 tive that the actual relation of the two Confessions to one another 
 should be made perfectly plain. 
 
 The systems of doctrine taught in these two Confessions do 
 not stand related to one another as more and less clear, or 
 more and less full, or more and less consistent, or more and less 
 jgenial expressions of the same system ; but as precise contra- 
 Idictories. The one is a clear, full, consistent and genial expres- 
 Ision of the Calvinistic sj^stem. The other is an equally clear, full, 
 I consistent and genial expression of the Arminian system. We are 
 I not vmaware that our Cumberland brethren do not affect the name of 
 Arminians, and desire to be understood rather as occupying, or at least 
 as seeking to occupy, an intermediate position between the two great 
 systems. Nor are we unappreciative of the fact that in a few items 
 of doctrine they separate themselves from the type of Arminianism 
 ordinarily taught by the theologians of the great Methodist bodies, 
 whether of Britain or America, whether of the earlier or later genera- 
 tions of Wesleyanism. But Weslej'anism and Arminianism are not 
 absolutely equipollent terms; and despite the minor differences that 
 may exist between the structures raised on the fimdamental Armin- 
 ian principles by varied types of Arminianism, no one of these tj^Dcs 
 can cease to be Arminian so long as its organic principles are 
 the Arminian fundamentals of human autonomy and imiversal 
 grace. And the system set forth in the Cumberland Presbyterian 
 Confession is as pure a development of the principle of universal 
 grace — "divine influence" it is called here — as that developed by any 
 other typical form of Arminianism — Dutch, Jesuit or Wesleyan. We 
 designate the Confession of Faith of the Cumberland Presb}' terian 
 Church an Arminian document, not as wishing to affix a term of 
 reproach upon it, but merely as wishing to describe it intelhgibh'^ by 
 assigning it to its proper class. It is, as a matter of fact, not only 
 a typical Arminian document, but one of the most consequent and 
 consistent and, we may add, at once one of the most able and the 
 most attractive of its class. Evangelical Ai-minianisra has, in fact, 
 reached as pure and concinnated an expression in it as has ever been 
 given it in a confessional document. 
 
 It could not indeed fail to be a purely Arminian document if it were 
 
16 
 
 at all fitly to represent the movement out of which it grew. For this 
 movement had as its governing principle precisely protest against Cal- 
 vinism in its formative principles as enunciated in the cardinal doc- 
 trines of absolute predestination and irresistible grace. The "fathers'! 
 of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church represented their protest 
 indeed to bo against "fatalism." But whatever confusion between 
 "predestination" and "fatalism," "fatahsm" and "irresistible grace," 
 may have troubled the minds of the "fathers," it speedily became 
 evident on the emergence of the Church into separate organization 
 that what was assaulted under this opprobrious name was just Cal- 
 vinism. The entire literature produced by the Cumberland Presby- 
 terian Church not only illustrates this fact, but demonstrates it to 
 satiety. Everywhere throughout the whole of it, it is just predestina- 
 tion — as taught by Augustine, as taught by Calvin, as taught by the 
 Reformed divines of every type and as embodied in the Reformed 
 Creeds of every class — that comes up for criticism and reprobation: 
 and everywhere a doctrine is opposed to it which makes the determina- 
 tion of God in the matter of the salvation of the individual soul wait 
 on the prior action of the human spirit. But we need not go for proof 
 beyond the credal statements of the Church themselves. What the 
 " fathers " set themselves to do in the preparation of their first Confession 
 (adopted in 1S14) was not so prudently to define the doctrine of pre- 
 destination as to exclude all implications of real fatalism, Ijut just to 
 exscind the doctrine of predestination altogether. They themselves 
 speak of their work no doubt as directed to "erasing from the old Con- 
 fession the idea of fatahty"; but the book is here to speak for itself, 
 and what is erased is every faintest allusion to predestination, electing 
 grace and effectual calling.* A long explanatory note is added, to be 
 sure, to the third chapter, in which it is essayed to mark out an "inter- 
 mediate position" between Calvinism and Arminianism; but in which 
 rather the direct antithesis to Calvinism of the whole conception oper- 
 ated with is brought clearly out: "In a particular and saving sense, 
 none can be properly called God's elect till they be justified and united 
 to Christ." With this blossoming of the green tree the fruitage that 
 has been borne on the dry is not surprising. The manner in which 
 the Confession of 1814 was framed — largely by a process of elimination 
 of the predestinarian assertions — left the positive development of the 
 implications of the doctrine of universal grace incompletely worked out. 
 The Church was therefore restless until an entirely new Confession 
 was drawn up (adopted in 1883), in which, no longer satisfied with the 
 mere elimination — as we arc told in the Preface — of "the doctrine of 
 universal foreordination and its legitimate sequences, unconditional 
 election and reprobation, limited atonement, and divine influence 
 
 * The principal changes made by it in the Westminster Confession may be 
 conveniently inspected in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review for July, 1902. 
 pp. 418 sq. 
 
17 
 
 correspondingly circumscribed," it built up constructively a complete 
 system on the Arminian principle of universal grace as its prindpium. 
 It is probably the most elaborately developed, thoroughly compacted 
 and completely concinnated Arminian creed in existence : everywhere 
 set foursquare in opposition to what its authors call, with imnecessary 
 opprobrium, "hyper-Calvinism." As a piece of constructive evan- 
 gehcal Arminianism it is worthy of much praise, and its difference 
 from its predecessor of 1814 turns just on the fact that the eariier 
 creed was merely destructive, while this successfully takes up the 
 constructive role.* 
 
 We deem the matter of the Arminian character of this Confession 
 of sufficient importance at the present juncture to justify entering 
 upon it somewhat more in detail. 
 
 The clash of the Arminian and Calvinistic principles is always most 
 sharply manifested in what is called, technically, the ordo salutis, 
 or the enumeration of the steps or stages in which salvation is made 
 the possession of the sinner. The Calvinistic scheme requires the 
 following order: Regeneration, Faith, Justification, Sanctification, 
 etc. : and all Calvinistic documents so give it. The Arminian scheme 
 most naturally falls into the following order : Sufficient Grace, 
 Faith, Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification, etc. It is, now, 
 this Arminian ordo salutis which constitutes the core of the Cum- 
 berland Confession (§§ 38 sq.). To go more into particulars, the 
 Cumberland Confession teaches with great explicitness that the 
 saving work begins with a universal divine influence (§§ 38 sq.), 
 by which the Holy Spirit, operating thus on every man without 
 exception (§ 38), so acts upon man (§ 39) that it is made possible 
 for all to be saved (§ 40), but not certain that any should be 
 saved (§ 41). It is expressly denied that this influence is irresistible, 
 and as expressly affirmed that it is rendered effectual only by the sm- 
 ner's own act of faith (§41). This act of faith becomes thus the proper 
 condition (§§ 46 and 49) on which all subsequent saving acts of God 
 depend. Those that believe, accordingly, are justified (§§48 sq.), 
 and then regenerated (§§ 51 sq.), and so on through the remaining 
 stages. We need not stop to point out that this is Arminianism in 
 its purest and most irreducible expression, and is the precise contra- 
 diction of the entire Reformed system. 
 
 It may be worth while to indicate, however, how the necessary corol- 
 laries of this ordo salutis — which include the denial of all the elements 
 of the Reformed system — emerge in the Cumberland Confession. The 
 so-called "five points" against which the original Remonstrants pro- 
 tested in the Reformed system concerned the doctrines of absolute 
 predestination, particular redemption, original sin, efficacious grace and 
 
 * For the origin and character of the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of 
 1883, see The Prisbylerian and Rejormed Review for July, 19U2, pp. 424 sq. 
 
18 
 
 perseverance. (1) The hinge of the Reformed system, and the central 
 point of the Arminian assault alike, is the doctrine of efficacious grace. 
 And we have already seen that the Cumljerland Confession explicitly 
 rejects this doctrine : it denies in terms that the grace of the Holy Spirit 
 saves by its own power — it only renders it possible for man to save 
 himself (§ 40); it roundly asserts that this grace is "not irresistible" 
 (§ 41) ; and as roundly declares that it is rendered effectual only by the 
 improvement of it by the sinner (§ 41). This is not only a decided 
 but a polemic rejection of the Reformed principle at its centre. (2) 
 Now this rejection of efficacious grace not only leaves no place for but 
 definitely excludes the Reformed doctrine of predestination. Accord- 
 ingly the sections on the Decrees of God (§§8 and 9) carefully confine 
 predestination to God's own acts, to the exclusion of all acts of other 
 agents, which are thus left "free " ; and the other doctrines are through- 
 out the Confession carefully adjusted to this exclusion of all "election." 
 For example, in § 17 the Covenant of Grace is given its distinctively 
 Arminian form as establishing a new gracious probation for all men: 
 that is, the parties to it are conceived not as God and Christ, nor as 
 God and Christ as the Head of His people, nor as God and Christ's 
 people in Him ; but as God and all men indiscriminately, who are offered 
 now a new and easier probation than Adam enjoyed. Again in § 95 the 
 invisible Church is made to consist, not of God's elect (luiown to Him 
 prior to any foreseen action of their own), but only of those who have 
 already believed — that is to say, is confused with the visible Church, 
 (3) Similarly the doctrine of original sin is taught in its complete Ar- 
 minian form, that is, as a theoretical postulate, set aside practically 
 in the case of all men ahke by a new "gracious probation" under the 
 Covenant of Grace (§ 17), that is, by a manifestation of the spirit to 
 every man, rendering it now possible for them to be saved (§§ 40, 41). 
 This is the precise doctrine of Arminian "gracious ability," as dis- 
 tinguished from the Pelagian "natural abihty." It is to be noted, 
 however, that the Cumberland Confession, in taking its position here 
 with the evangelical Arminians, does not wholly escape a Pelagian- 
 izing tendency in its doctrine of sin. This comes out more promi- 
 nently, however, in its doctrine of the original state of man (§ 11; 
 cp. § 18), which it studiously speaks of as a state of "uprightness" and 
 "innocence," to the neglect of the positive "righteousness and holi- 
 ness" which is the essence of the Reformed doctrine; and also in its 
 equally studious exclusion of all confession of a doctrine of "imputa- 
 tion" of sin. (4) The Reformed doctrine of "particular reilemption," 
 it goes without saying, is directly and repeatedly antagonized. It 
 is the fundamental contention of this Confession that in all that God 
 docs toward saving the sinner — whether in the gift of a Redeemer, or 
 in the gift of the applying Spirit— He has all men indifferently in mind 
 (§§ 27, 31, 33, 38, 40, etc.). The exclusion of all particularism in the 
 process of salvation might indeed be said to be the chief purpose of 
 
19 
 
 this Confession. (5) Of the five "points" there remains only that of 
 the "Perseverance of the Saints," and this the Cumberland Con- 
 fession, with utter disregard of the logic of its own system, inconsist- 
 ently preserves (§ 60). Of the "five points of Calvinism," so called, 
 therefore, this Confession is in a polemic attitude toward four and 
 retains a single one, doubtless through historical, since it cannot be 
 through logical, consistency. It would be easy to go on and show 
 that the whole fabric of the Confession is determined by its Arminian 
 standpoint, and that it is through and through an Ai-minian document 
 with a sharply polemic edge turned against the Reformed system. 
 Surely, enough has been already said, however, to exhibit the fact that 
 it is simply the contradictory of the Reformed system. 
 
 It follows, of course, that no harmony can be instituted between the 
 Cumberland Confession and the Westminster Confession: you can- 
 not harmonize precise contradictories. It is impossible to hold the 
 one Creed in one hand and the other in the other, except on the expedi- 
 ent of not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing. 
 To profess to accept both is saying yes and no in the same breath. 
 The acceptance of one is ipso facto the disavowal of the other: standing 
 side by side they do not modify one another, but obliterate one another 
 in their entire systematic development. How, then, can we hear 
 those who have hitherto been apparently sincei'e adherents of the one, 
 without express disavowal of it proposing to "adopt" the other, with- 
 out experiencing the most serious misgivings as to whether the meaning 
 of the act is fully appreciated? 
 
 These misgivings are certainly not allayed by the appearance in 
 the fabric of the Committees' recommendations of yet further clauses, 
 besides* those already mentioned, which we cannot help fearing either 
 may be indications of, or at least may prove in the future causes of, 
 very grave misapprehension. These are clauses which may possibly be 
 read as implying that something in the revision of its Confession of 
 Faith completed in 1903, may operate essentially to alter either the 
 Confessional doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
 of America or at least the relation in which that Church stands to its 
 Confession. Nothing, of course, could be more mistaken; and we 
 should be ashamed to speak of so gross a misapprehension as possible, 
 did we not have to reckon, when dealing wth popular impressions, 
 with the reckless misrepresentations of the public press, which too 
 often seeks to create a sensation at the cost of all regard for exactness 
 of statement; and did there not occiu-, as we have said, certain clauses 
 in the recommendations of the joint Committees which may seem 
 to some to give color to such misapprehensions. In these circum- 
 stances we feel bound to advert formally to the matter. 
 
 In the proposed formal basis of union itself we read: "The union 
 shall be effected on the doctrinal basis of the Confession of Faith of 
 
20 
 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of Auaeiica, as revised 
 in 1903"; and this phrase "as revised in 1903" is repeated elsewhere, 
 as if it embodied a qualification of importance. Attention has already 
 been directed to the odd "now" occurring in the opening sentence of 
 the first "Concurrent Declaration " as liable to a similar interpretation : 
 "It is mutually recognized that such agreement now exists between 
 the systems of doctrine contained in the Confessions of Faith of the two 
 Chmxhes as to warrant this union." Further on in the same Declara- 
 tion specific appeal is made to the Declaratory Statement of 1903, 
 apparently as if in some way it secured to the signatories of the Con- 
 fession greater "liberty" than was enjoyed before. Even the subse- 
 quent allusion to the "Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith," 
 although altogether impertinent, inasmuch as that docmueut is 
 no part of our Standards, may possibly operate to strengthen the 
 impression which these other clauses make, that the re\ision 
 of 1903 is felt to have in some way essentially changed the 
 doctrinal basis of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
 America. 
 
 It is possible, of course, that all these clauses are intended only 
 to suggest that the revision of 1903 removes some misapprehen- 
 sions as to the teaching of the Confession, liitherto cherished by our 
 Cumberland brethren, and to that extent renders it more accept- 
 able to them. Let us hope that this is what is intended. Mean- 
 while it is difficult to avoid fearing that more significance has been 
 attached to them by our Cumberland Presbyterian brethren, and is 
 in danger of being attached to them in the future; and that the 
 repeated reference in them to the revision of 1903 indicates that it is 
 vaguely felt by our brethren that that revision in some way or other 
 so modified our Confession that adherents of the Cumberland Con- 
 fession can now with a good conscience subscribe our Confession also. 
 If there is any danger of such a misapprehension existing or coming 
 into existence, it is at once made our duty to say with all emphasis 
 that the revisions and enlargements entered into the Confession in 
 1903 in no way affect the radical disagreement between the Confessions 
 of Faith in authority in the two Churches, and do not make it one 
 whit more possible to hold to them both in common. With ihese 
 revisions and enlargements as without them, the Confession of Faith of 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is and remains 
 a soundly, explicitly, emphatically Calvinistic document; under tlic 
 aegis of which nothing but clear and consistent Cahinism can legiti- 
 mately find refuge. 
 
 It certainly would be strange if it were otherwise. In appointing its 
 Committee to formulate amendments — whether in the form of modi- 
 fications of the text or of Declaratory Statement or of additional 
 statements — the Assembly strictly instructed it to propose no revisions 
 which should in anj' way "impair the integrity of the sy.^tcm of doc- 
 
21 
 
 trine set forth iu our Confebsiou and taught in tlie Holy Scripture."* 
 Working under these instructions, nothing was fnore emphasized by 
 the Committee itself or by the friends of the proposals made by it, 
 ihrotighout all the debates which ended in the adoption of these pro- 
 posals, than just that they "in no way impaired the integrity of the 
 system of doctrine set forth in our Confession." It surely would be a 
 sad miscarriage if, nevertheless, they have so impaii'ed the integrity of 
 that system as to make way in the revised document for its precise 
 contradiction. Even the most cursory examination of the matter 
 introduced by this revision will suffice, however, to show the absurdity 
 of such a supposition. We have not the happiness to count ourselves 
 among the admirers of the revision of 1903. But it is impossible to 
 contend that that revision in any way modifies the system of doctrihc 
 taught in our Confession, or in any degree lowers the clearness or 
 emphasis with which it is taught. The sections introduced by it 
 are, in our judgment, needless excrescences on the Confession of Faith, 
 and the Confession would, in our opinion, be better without them. 
 But taking their place in the fabric of the Confession, they enter 
 harmoniously into its system and modify that system in no single 
 particular. 
 
 It is quite possible, to be sure, that one whose ideas as to the 
 teaching of the Confession have been derived not from that docu- 
 ment itself, but from polemic allusions to it current in circles 
 inimical to it and to the system of doctrine which it teaches, may 
 not recognize in the clauses of the Declaratory Statement 
 adopted in 1903, for example, elements of truth which he has 
 been accustomed to think of as provided for in the Confession 
 or as capable of finding a place in the .system taught in it. But this 
 would be his fault, not the fault of the Confession or of the Calvinistic 
 system taught by it. It is safe to say, on the other hand, that no one 
 over held the doctrine of God's Eternal Decree as taught in the Con- 
 fession, who did not hold it in harmony with the love of God for all 
 mankind and the other truths set forth in the Declaratory Statement. 
 For this very reason, many of us thought that it was entirely nnneces- 
 sary to make a Declaratory Statement for the purpose of asserting 
 that the doctrine of the decree taught in the Confession is in harmony 
 with these precious truths; and that the very making of such a Declara- 
 tory Statement would be liable therefore to such misapprehension in 
 imperfectly informed circles as may possibly be exhibited in the clauses 
 now tuider discussion. But for this very reason again the making of 
 this Statement introduces absolutely notiiing new and in no way alters 
 or modifies or affects the doctrine of God's Eternal Decree, which is 
 quite truly, and quite superfluously, reasserted in the Declaratory 
 Act to be in harmony with these precious truths. It would be a delu- 
 sion of the most serious character to fancy that because this harmony, 
 
 * Minutes for 1901, p. 206; for 1902, p. S7. 
 
22 
 
 universally, not admitted but asserted and demonstrated, by all the 
 adherents of the Confession, is thus thrown into emphasis in a Declara- 
 tory Statement for the sake of those who, being without, have per- 
 sistently misrepresented the facts, the Confession may now be legiti- 
 mately adopted as their own Confession by men who passionately 
 deny the truth of one of the doctrines the harmony of which is here 
 asserted ; and that, on the precise ground that this harmony does not 
 exist and cannot exist. 
 
 What is true of the Declaratory Statement is true of the other 
 elements of the revision of 1903. We may like them or not like 
 them — we happen to be of the number of those who do not 
 like them. We may think they improve the Confession or mar it — 
 we happen to be of the number of those who think they mar it. But 
 no man can justly attribute to them either the intention or the effect 
 of de-Calvinizing the Confession and rendering it a document which 
 our Arminian brethren may legitimately adopt. 
 
 What has been thus said of the possible notion that the "revision 
 of 1903" may render our Confession easier of adoption by adherents 
 of the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession must be repeated in effect 
 of the parallel notion that the Declaratory Act of 1903 in any way 
 enlarges the dimensions of the liberty enjoyed by our ofKce-bearcrs 
 under their ordination vow. Quite possibly the purpose with which 
 the clauses of the Declaratory Act which recite the ordination vow 
 are quoted in the "Concurrent Declarations" is not to suggest that the 
 "liberty of belief" enjoyed by the officers of the Presbyterian Church 
 is enlarged by the Act. Possibly what is intended is only to take com- 
 fort from the fact that this "liberty of belief" is more firmly secured 
 to office-bearers by its recitation in the Declaratory Act, inasmuch as 
 it is thus incorporated in the Confession of Faith itself, and not left 
 merely to the provisions of tlie Form of Government. Let us hope 
 that this is the case. Meanwhile it must be allowed that the manner 
 in which the Declaratory Act is cited here gives some color to the notion 
 that it may be thought to enlarge the dimensions of the liberty enjoyed 
 by Presbyterian office-bearei's ; and it is quite possible that some may 
 so read it. In the face of this possibility it becomes incumbent on us 
 to see that such a misapprehension does not take root. 
 
 It is not in the least true that the Declaratory Act enlarges the 
 dimensions of our "liberty of belief." In quoting the ordination 
 vow it quotes it as it lies on the face of the Form of Govern- 
 ment, and it does not in the least modify it in quoting it. It 
 does indeed say that the ordination vow demands nothing more 
 than it demands, but that was certainly true before it said it. It 
 leaves the ordination vow (which it merely quotes) precisely as it 
 was when it found it, viz., a vow demanding of all who accept our 
 Confession of Faith that they accept it as a system of doctrine; 
 
23 
 
 and that they affirm by their acceptance of it that this system 
 of doctrine is the system of doctrine that is taught in Holy Scripture. 
 \Yc cannot deem it possible that any one wll seriously contend that 
 the words "only as containing the system of doctrine taught in the 
 Holy Scriptures" can legitimately be interpreted as meaning "only so 
 far as containing, etc." If any such exists he must undeceive himself 
 at once. The sense is nothing other than, "only in this sense, namely, 
 as containing the system of doctrine" — that is to say, not in its every 
 proposition or mode of statement, but only in the system of doctrine 
 it contains, to wit, the Calvinistic system. There is, so far as we Icnow, 
 no difference of opinion as to the import of the ordination vow in our 
 Cliurches: it is everywhere understood and administered as binding 
 those taking it merely to tlie system and not to the detailed manner 
 of stating that system ; but as binding them strictly to the system in 
 its integrity and in its entirety. As such it has been justly lauded as 
 combining in itself all reasonable liberty with all reasonable strictness 
 — binding as it does to the great system of doctrine expressed in the 
 Confession ^-ith absolute strictness, and }'et leaving room for all pos- 
 sible individual preferences in modes of conceiving and stating tliis 
 system. Under this combined strictness and liberty every genuine 
 form of Cahdnism has an equal right of existence under the Confession. 
 The Realist can accept it with as good a conscience as the Federalist; 
 the Amyraldian with as good a conscience as the Cocceian. But 
 Iioyond the hmits of generic Calvinism the right of adoption ceases. 
 Our vow of ordination is not a solemn farce: and the terms of our 
 adoption of the Confession are not so phrased as to enable us to seem 
 to adopt it while not adopting it at all. 
 
 Such, tlien, are some of the misgivings we have felt as \vc have con- 
 templated the terms of union between the two CIuutIics wliirh the joint 
 Committees have agreed upon as proper to propose to the approaching 
 Assembhes. It may bo. that we have exercised our soul vmnecessarily. 
 It may be that in consr'uting to unite with us on the basis of our own 
 doctrinal and ecclesiastical Standards, our brethren of the Cumberland 
 Presbyterian Churcli, resting under no fatal misapprehensions as to 
 either tlic sense of thi^se Standards or tlie meaning of the act of adopting 
 them, intend to say that they have come in the process of time to see 
 eye to eye with us, and now wish to join with us in confessing the great 
 tr\iths of God to wliich o\ir common ancestors, centuries ago, gave 
 their testimony, even unto blood — that great system of doctrine known 
 to the modern world as Calvinism, which is just the thetical expression 
 of evangelical religion in its purity. Who could rejoice over such a con- 
 summation more than we? Except, indeed, our Cumberland brethren 
 themselves, who would be thus, after so many years of misapprehen- 
 sion, and separation based on misapprehen.sion, returning not only to 
 the fold whence they went fortli, but to tlie riclies of that l^ody o{ truth 
 
24 
 
 which is for the salvation of the world. Even in that case, however, 
 it cannot be that we have spoken in vain. In any case, there is nothing 
 so good in negotiations of this kind as a good understanding : and a good 
 understanding that we agree is siu-ely as good as a good understanding 
 that we differ. In any event, therefore, let us come to a good under- 
 standing — an understanding so good that no liu-king misunderstanding 
 remains possible. If the two Churches are really at one — one in faith 
 as in order, one in doctrine as in devotion ; and if it be best for the 
 interests of which they have severally in their separated states come 
 to be the supports and stays : why, then let them become also one in 
 form as already in fact. If they be not really one, let them clearly 
 recognize it. and not seek to force themselves into some artificial 
 external unity which cannot in those circimistances fail to wound con- 
 sciences and injure vested interests. There is something better than 
 " organic union." Mutual regard and brotherly spirit are better : and it 
 is assuredly better that these should persist without "organic union" 
 than that "organic union" should be built up on their niins. 
 
 Princeton. Benjamin B. Warfield. 
 
r 
 
 'iir ]!"'°'°9"^^' Seminary-SpMr Librar 
 
 1 1012 01023 7982