2g5,\. | i 
 14 
 
 PROGRESS OF THE REUNION MOVEMENT. 
 
 * The signs of the times are full of promise in behalf of the 
 speedy reunion of the separated branches of ‘the Presbyterian 
 Church in this country.) The parted stream is soon to flow 
 again in one channel. ‘Those who rejoice in the present, and 
 can remember the painful past, are ‘like them that dream.” 
 To younger men, now ‘upon the stage, who would learn the 
 lessons of the past, andl act well their parts in the closing 
 
 ha, scenes of the separation, the record of strife, so speedily fol- 
 | lowed by division; the prevalence of jealousies and competi- 
 
 tions, marking so mally years of the period of separation, and 
 the rapid return of brotherly kindness and charity, hastening 
 the fullness of time {for reunion, must be an intensely inter- 
 esting study. 
 
 For nearly a quarter of a century, Old School and New 
 School were generally regarded ag honorary titles, by those 
 who accepted the one or the other. Until within a few years, a 
 declaration in favor of uniting the divided church was gene- 
 rally received with suspicion, and very often with reproach. 
 On either side, it was taken for granted that the sin of schism 
 was chargeable upon the opposite party, and that the breach 
 could only be healed by retraction or absorption. <A great 
 change has taken place in the spirit and views of both parties. 
 The last few years of discussion and negotiation have been 
 characterized by a rapid renewal of charity and confidence, 
 and a growing evidence of oneness of sentiment and spirit, 
 that are as surprising as they are grateful to every Christian 
 heart. As the contest, which so soon ended in disruption, 
 was mainly fed by evil surmisings and mutual accusations, 80 
 the work of peace is to be a short work, because of the prev- 
 alence and power of love and meekness, of patience and for- 
 bearance, under the guidance of the God of peace. 
 
 Though reunion is almost universally regarded as an event 
 | of certain and speedy accomplishment, much may depend on 
 _ what remains to be done, in order that it may be happy and 
 _ permanent. The time and the manner of its completion 
 _ should be wisely chosen, to render sure the harvest of blessing 
 for which we have been sowing in tears. In order that the 
 | steps yet to be taken may be wise, it may be well to trace the 
 ) progress of the movement thus far, and note the indications 
 of Providence, pointing out the way by which the end may 
 | be best; secured. The present posture of the question has 
 } not been attained by man’s wisdom, but by Divine guidance, 
 j and there is still need of wisdom from on high. The provi- 
 | dential leadings, from the first, seem to have been in favor 
 | of the method of consummation to which both churches are 
 
 | a 35309 
 Loe 
 
now tending. A retrospect of the discussions, overtures, 
 negotiations and ecclesiastical action, in the progress of the - 
 reunion movement, will show that its friends, in contradis- 
 tinction from those who have been it or 
 posed to it, have ever been for it, on 
 concessions or pledges. They have regarded both churches © 
 as intelligent and honest in their adherence to their common 
 standar ds, and they have desired no other basis or bond of 
 union. Whatever they may have eat in proposing explana- 
 tions and pledges as a part of terms @f union, has been by 
 way of concession to others, and for the\sake of union, which 
 they feared might not otherwise be gained. The early friends 
 of reunion, and all who from time to tithe have been brought 
 to stand with them, have exhibited a remarkable unanimity 
 of spirit and views on the whole subject. ‘They have ever - 
 been prepared, for themselves, to form the union upon the 
 basis of the standards alone, and they have ever declared the 
 prevalence of restored confidence and fraternity to be the ne- 
 cessary and sufficient evidence of readiness\ for it. There 1s 
 no doubt but this is the prevailing view, at) this time, in both 
 branches. 
 The first formal movement in favor of 1 reunion, in which 
 any definite opinion was expressed in reg ard\to the basis on 
 which it should be formed, began in 1864, when the Old School 
 General Assembly met in N ewark, N.J. A nheeting was held 
 of ministers and elders, in attendance upon that Assembly, to 
 consider the question of reunion and to propose measures for 
 its accomplishment. A paper was adopted and, published, not 
 only urging the necessity of union and suggesting measures 
 adapted to prepare the churches for it, but presenting what 
 was regarded as the proper basis for it. This\ paper says ¢ 
 ‘It is believed that the great majority in each| branch sin- 
 cerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith, as contain- 
 ing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, and ap- 
 prove the same Government and Discipline. On this basis we 
 may reunite, mutually regarding and treating the \office bear- 
 ers and church courts of each branch as codrdinate elements 
 in the reconstruction. There are difficulties in thal way of re- 
 pairing the breaches of Zion, which must be met ‘nd over- 
 come by well-considered methods and in a spirit of forbear- 
 ance and prudence. Reunion can not be accomplished, nor is 
 it to be desired, without the restoration of a spirit of unity 
 and fraternity. We believe this spirit exists and is colstantly 
 increasing. That which should first engage the attehtion of 
 the friends of reunion should be to find out how far 1 nity of 
 sentiment and kindness of feeling prevail.” Here the Vonfes- 
 sion of Faith, received as it prescribes, without anything more, 
 
3 
 
 _is presented as the proposed basis; and the conditions pre- 
 _cedent to union are, that there shall be, and be found to be, 
 ‘unity of sentiment and kindness of feeling.” This document 
 was signed by 70 Ministers and 43 Ruling Elders, who were 
 all present at the Assembly at Newark, and who represented 
 _ the reunion sentiment of every section of the Church. Among 
 _the signers of the Newark paper are to be found the names of 
 _three editors of the Church, who also advocated its sentiments 
 in their papers. . 
 
 The same views were presented the same year in a sermon 
 preached at the opening of the New School General Assem- 
 “bly, at Dayton, Ohio, in which these “ three prime conditions” 
 of reunion were declared to be: 1. ‘‘ An open and manly 
 union on equal terms;” 2. ‘‘ That both accept in its integrity 
 the_Presbyterian system of church order;” and 3. ‘‘ That the 
 reunion be simply on the basis of the standards which we 
 equally accept.” This discourse and the Newark paper were 
 widely published and universally endorsed by the friends of 
 reunion as presenting the true basis on which the two churches 
 should be united. Before this, several Presbyteries of each 
 body had memorialized their General Assemblies, asking them 
 to take steps to secure the union of the two bodies, and in the 
 religious press of the two churches much had been written in 
 this behalf; but it may be safely affirmed that no other method 
 of union was advocated by the friends of reunion, except upon 
 the basis of the common standards of the two churches; while 
 those who were opposed to union ever claimed the necessity 
 of outside guards and guaranties. 
 
 The Reunion Presbyterian was established in January, 
 1855, as an organ of the friends of reunion, It was an ex- 
 ponent of the advanced thought and earnest feeling of its 
 time in both branches. It advocated reunion upon the stand- 
 ards alone. Its editors and correspondents discussed the 
 whole ground, since included in the plan of the Joint Com- 
 mittee. They approved all the principles to be found in the 
 several items of that plan, and yet they propose the stand- 
 ards alone as the basis, and confidence as the bond of union. 
 In their first number the editor says: ‘*‘ The two branches 
 ought to come together on the sole basis of our common 
 standards ; and, if they can not do so, it were probably better 
 that reunion should not be attempted.” ‘‘The standards 
 held in common by the two branches are the only standards 
 held by each branch. If these standards are the freely chosen 
 and approved basis of doctrine in each branch, why will they 
 not be asuitable and sufficient basis for both churches united.” 
 ‘There is every reason to believe that each branch is pledged, 
 in good faith and in the same sense of terms, to our common 
 
4 
 
 ~ 
 
 Confession.” ‘If we undertake to interpret the Confession 
 we shall not know where to stop.” ‘‘ The desire for a new 
 basis is the offspring of suspicion. Reunion must be the re- 
 sult of mutual confidence and love.” 
 
 In the first official action of the two bodies, in the way of 
 negotiation for reunion, the same view is very distinctly pre- 
 sented. Memorials had been sent up to the Assemblies of 
 1866, which met in St. Louis, Mo., and had been referred to 
 the proper committees to report thereon. Two brethren, one 
 of each Assembly, who were severally charged by their respec- 
 tive committees to prepare action in answer to these overtures, 
 had an interview. The New School representative said: 
 ‘“‘Our brethren think that your Assembly should take the in- 
 itiative.” To which it was replied: ‘‘ Our brethren are not 
 able to see the propriety of this view, which is often expressed, 
 but they are quite willing to accept the honor that it secures.” 
 A Joint Reunion Committee was proposed to negotiate for 
 reunion on equal terms, and upon our common standards as the 
 basis, and confidence as the bond. This was agreed to and 
 action was accordingly prepared, which was approved by the 
 Committees and adopted by the Assemblies. The action of 
 the two Assemblies need not be recited in detail. The mean- 
 ing of the writers of the action adopted, and of the friends of 
 union voting for it, in either Assembly, was reunion upon the 
 standards as the basis, to be accomplished as soon as mutual 
 confidence and love were found so to prevailas to open the way 
 for it, in regard to which the Joint Committee were appointed 
 to confer and inquire and report. 
 
 When the Joint Committe was called to meet in New York 
 in February, 1867, separate meetings were first held by agree- 
 ment. The Old School found the notion still current that 
 they should lead in the negotiations. Accordingly 1t was pro- 
 posed, as the proper course of proceeding under the instruc- 
 tions of the Assembly, to unite with the other Committee in 
 sending to the presbyteries of both bodies an overture asking 
 answers to several questions, whereby the Joint Committee 
 might be abie to form an opinion as to whether there was such 
 unity in doctrine, such restoration of confidence and frater- 
 nity, and such desire for reunion, and confidence that it would 
 be harmonious and permanent, as to justify further steps for 
 its accomplishment. A paper to this effect was prepared and 
 sent to the other Committee. The response to this commu- 
 nication led to a joint meeting and a full conference on the 
 whole subject. In the Joint Committee, in justification of the 
 proposition made by the Old School Committee, a member 
 said, that under our instructions our first work was to inquire 
 
5 
 
 whether the two churches were so agreed as to be prepared for 
 reunion; and, if this were found to be so, the union might be 
 consummated upon our common standards, received and 
 adopted in the use of the same formula of subscription. To 
 this it was replied by a brother of the New School Committee: 
 ‘‘ We adopted the standards in the use of this formula thirty 
 years ago, and yet we divided. We must have an understand- 
 ing or we may again have difficulty.” He was understood to 
 be in favor of a written covenant, and there were others who 
 agreed with him. However, as the conference progressed, 
 and point after point was discussed, no opinion was so fre- 
 quently expressed and assented to as that when it shall be 
 made to appear that the churches are really prepared for 
 union—when unity and confidence are found to prevail—the 
 points of difficulty will have disappeared. This conference 
 had the happy effect to make it manifest that the difficulties 
 in the way of reunion were less than had been anticipated. 
 & An adjournment for two months was agreed upon, and in 
 the mean time information was to be sought in regard to the 
 state of opinion in the different sections of the church, as 
 every one might have opportunity. This meeting attempted 
 nothing in regard to a basis. A member of the Joint Com- 
 mittee, soon after the adjournment, published, in the Roches- 
 ter Union, the following statement, which fairly represents 
 this meeting: ‘‘After a free interchange of views it was 
 found that there was nothing in the way of reunion, so far as 
 the members of the Committee were concerned, but it was 
 deemed best to test, so far as possible, the sense of the peo- 
 ple comprising the two general bodies of Presbyterians before 
 taking definite action. For this purpose the Joint Committee 
 adjourned to meet again on the first day of May. If the evi- 
 dence-which may be obtained by the members of the Commit- 
 tee in the meantime shall warrant, it is possible that at the 
 May meeting some decisive action may be taken, looking to 
 the consummation of union, though it may require some little 
 time to perfect the work. Communications from members of 
 the Church who are interested, and who desire to make sug- 
 gestions, may be addressed to any member of the Committee.” 
 
 When the Joint Committee met again, May 1, 1867, after 
 full conference, a report was agreed upon, proposing the re- 
 union of the two churches “as independent bodies, and on 
 equal terms,” and proposing ‘‘'Terms and Recommendations 
 suited to meet the demands of the case.” This report pro- 
 posed that ‘‘ the reunion shall be effected upon the doctrinal 
 and ecclesiastical basis of our common standards,” and yet its 
 first item contained this explanatory clause: ‘Its fair histor- 
 ical sense, as it is accepted by the two bodies, in opposition to 
 
6 
 
 Antinomianism and Fatalism on the one hand, and to Armin- 
 ianism and Pelagianism on the other, shall be regarded as the 
 sense in which it is received and adopted.” There was a de- 
 mand, especially by those who were opposed to reunion, or 
 unprepared for it, made manifest in the public discussions, and 
 reaching the Committee by private letters, for pledges and 
 limitations in regard not only to doctrine, but other points. 
 It seemed necessary, in order to meet this demand and fully 
 discuss supposed differences, that terms of union should be 
 presented in detail, and the Committee recommended their 
 publication for one year for “deliberate examination” before a 
 final report. | 
 During the interval between the meetings of the Assemblies 
 of 1867 and 1868, there were many who persistently demand- 
 ed other and better pledges and limitations, and there was an 
 earnest desire to mect the wishes of such persons, and, if pos- 
 sible, secure their acquiescence. At the same time there were 
 unmistakable evidences that the friends of reunion preferred 
 the standards alone as the basis. To this effect several presby- 
 teries gave an expression of their views, and such was the re- 
 port ot the Committee appointed by the Philadelphia Conven- 
 tion to prepare a basis of union. The amendment of that ba- 
 sis, as moved by Dr. H. B. Smith, was not an expression of 
 his views of what the basis should be, but a peace-offering, 
 intended to remove prejudices, in regard to the views of his 
 own church. Those who voted for this amendment, did not 
 desire it, for its own sake. Those of the New School who 
 voted for it, had the same motives with the mover, and Old 
 School men voted for it as an expression of confidence in Dr. 
 Smith and his brethren. So strong was the preference for the 
 basis, as reported, that the amendment was carried only by a 
 vote of 68 ayes to 27 nays, the nays being chiefly from the Old 
 School. Those who voted for the amendment, no doubt, agreed 
 with Dr. Musgrave, who said at the time: ‘‘I would never 
 have offered such an addition to the report of our Committee. 
 I would have been perfectly satisfied to have it as it originally 
 stood. But now that it has been introduced, and that by a 
 respected brother of the New School, I find, sir, it would be 
 impolitic to withdraw it, or vote it down ; because, sir, it ex- 
 presses precisely what the Old School would regard as satis- 
 factory. Let us retain this amendment, and mark the pre- 
 diction, that if you do, this union will be consummated.” It 
 may be safely said, that the only favor which this amendment 
 ever received from the friends of reunion, was because it prom- 
 ised to relieve the doubts of many, who feared the want of uni- 
 ty of sentiment in thetwo bodies. In this direction, its adop- 
 tion was eminently wise, and its usefulness has been very great. 
 
7 
 
 When the Joint Committee met again, in March, 1868, the 
 almost universal expectation prevailed that the doctrinal basis 
 of the Philadelphia Convention would be adopted. It would 
 doubtless have received the approval of a large majority, in 
 each branch. The Old School members of the Joint Commit- 
 tee proposed this, but for the sake of unanimity on the other 
 side, another explanatory clause was added. This was re- 
 garded by many, for a time, as unfortunate, but it has result- 
 ed in good. Opposition to the explanatory clauses of the first 
 item of the report, has been connected with acquiescence in all 
 other parts of the plan on the part of one branch, while noth- 
 ing has been lost on the other. There were, in both churches 
 and in both Assemblies in 1868, minorities who were not sat- 
 isfied with the report of the Joint Committee. In the Albany 
 Assembly, the minority claimed that the Gurley Amendment 
 did not sufficiently guard the church against error. A clause 
 also in the action of the Harrisburgh Assembly, on the report 
 of the Joint Committee, was interpreted by them as binding 
 the united body to allow any doctrine, which it might be claim- 
 ed had ever been held by any one, in either branch. These 
 views were not acquiesced in by the majority in the Albany 
 Assembly, but they were earnestly maintained by the minor- 
 ity, and regarded of such importance by some, that one after 
 another of them said they would accept the other parts of the 
 basis, if the explanatory clauses of the first item were drop- 
 ped. This was regarded as hopeful by the majority, who had 
 ever favored the standards alone, as the proper basis. It 
 was thought to be highly important to satisfy as many of these 
 brethren as possible; and, after consultation, a majority 
 of the Old School Reunion Committee being present, it was 
 deemed expedient that the Assembly, after passing the basis 
 reported, should propose to the other Assembly, by way of 
 making the basis ‘‘ more simple and more expressive of mutual 
 confidence,” to drop from the first item the Smith and Gur- 
 ley Amendments, and this was done by a vote almost unani- 
 mous. This action was telegraphed to Harrisburgh, and a 
 special committee was sent to present it to the other Assem- 
 bly, and ask its concurrence. Before this, every step that had 
 been taken to prepare a basis, adding pledges and explanations, 
 had been taken by way of concession to those who had been 
 disinclined to union. Now this class, or many of them, seem- 
 ed to have changed their views, and it required no sacrifice to 
 accede to their wishes, which were the wishes, as it was be- 
 lieved, of a large majority in both branches. 
 
 After the Committee, appointed to go to Harrisburgh and 
 present the proposed amendment, had left Albany, a tele- 
 graphic despatch was received from Harrisburgh, asking wheth- 
 
8 
 
 er the Tenth Article of the basis would be given up, provided 
 the proposed amendment of the First Article was assented to. 
 It was thought best not to complicate the work of the Com- 
 mittee or to take up this proposition, which was only an in- 
 dividual suggestion. A different view, however, would have 
 been taken, in all probability, if the thought had occurred to 
 the persons consulted, that the dropping of the Tenth Article 
 was really necessary, in order that the basis might be the stand~ 
 ards pure and simple, and that this change would also be a 
 concession to the minority of the other branch, requiring no 
 sacrifice of principle in either party. 
 
 The Committee sent to Harrisburg arrived too late to ac- 
 complish their mission, and many friends of reunion felt that 
 the effort to secure the amendment had left the negotiations 
 in a most unfavorable posture. Time has shown that this was 
 an erroneous opinion. ‘The proposition for amendment gave 
 reasons in favor of it, which could not but insure every one 
 that it was offered in good faith and in growing confidence 
 and fraternity, while the answer to the Protest of the minor- 
 ity gave conclusive evidence that the Old School Assembly 
 did not distrust the soundness in the faith of the other body, 
 nor regard it as desiring undue latitude of opinion. Nothing 
 was done to weaken the bonds of fraternal confidence, but 
 much tostrengthenthem. It is well, it may now beconceded, 
 that it was too late for the Assembly at Harrisburg to con- 
 sider the proposed amendment. It is well that the New 
 School members of the Joint Committee declined to make any 
 suggestions in regard to the amendment proposed at Albany, 
 until their presbyteries had acted upon the overture regularly 
 sent down by the two Assemblies. A new phase had been 
 given to the reunion movement by the action of the Albany 
 Assembly, and time was needed to consider it. Itis also well 
 that the Pittsburgh Circular was issued, in the interest of the 
 supplemental action of the Albany Assembly, asking action, 
 not only upon the basis, but in favor of the amendment. That 
 circular had the effect to increase and unite the friends of 
 union in the Old School branch, while it resulted in preparing 
 that branch for reunion by the action of the Assemblies of 
 1869. It contained nothing to impair mutual trust and affec- 
 tion. It is well, moreover, that the consideration of the ques-- 
 tion of eliminating from the basis the Tenth Article, was 
 postponed until now. Everything that has occurred since: 
 the Assemblies met has resulted in leading the two churches. 
 toward an adjustment, by which the reunion will be on equal 
 terms, and to each more fair, honorable and safe, than if 
 either report of the Joint Committee had been adopted. It 
 is a curious as well as an interesting part of the history of the: 
 
9 
 
 reunion mevement, that in yielding to the fears of the doubt- 
 ing, and to the importunities of opposers, by trying to add 
 explanations to the standards for the sake of liberty or safety, 
 almost all have become convinced that the most practicable 
 and safe basis is the standards pure and simple. 
 
 Are any disposed to ask why it is that the Joint Committee 
 have lost so much time in negotiating for explanations and 
 guaranties? or why they did not at first, as their instructions 
 indicated, propose “union upon the basis of our common 
 standards?” The answeris obvious. The Joint Committee, 
 like the whole Church, were not prepared for such a report 
 without investigation and conference among themselves; and, 
 if they had been, they were instructed by the Assemblies first 
 to inquire whether reunion was ‘‘ desirable and practicable,” 
 and whether it could be accomplished in a manner that would 
 be ‘‘ consistent with agreement in doctrine, order and policy, 
 on the basis of our common standards, and the prevalence of 
 mutual confidence and love.” In prosecuting their inquiries, 
 it was necessary to canvass all the questions in regard to 
 which they prepared ‘‘ Terms and Recommendations ” in their 
 reports. It was necessary that every question of supposed 
 difference, whether of doctrine, order or administration, should 
 be harmonized, not only in the Committee, but also in the 
 two churches. When the Joint Committee entered upon 
 their work, a majority of both churches believed that there 
 were important differences in regard to doctrine, the examin- 
 ation of ministers, theological seminaries, publications, the 
 mixed churches and other things. How could these questions 
 be examined and discussed with any satisfactory result in the 
 absence of some such terms as were reported? How, especi- 
 ally, could the agreement of the churches in regard to doc- 
 trine, which has ever been regarded as the main point of dif- 
 ficulty, have been ascertained but by the discussion, before the 
 presbyteries, of some such statement as is furnished in the first 
 item of the ‘“‘Terms of Union” of the report? Something 
 like these explanatory causes was a necessity to secure such 
 a comparison of views as would give assurance in regard to 
 unity of sentiment. To have proposed thestandards alone as 
 the basis of union, without any ‘‘Terms,” as the reports call 
 them, or ‘‘ Measures,” in the language of the Assembly, would 
 have been to have insured defeat without the compensation 
 of having made any progress toward the object in view. It 
 is safe to say that without ‘“‘ Terms,” covering the points of 
 difference supposed to exist between the two churches, the 
 discussions could not have been so conducted as to make mani- 
 fest, in so short a time, the substantial unity which almost 
 
10 
 
 every one now believes to prevail. No other means, it is be- 
 heved, would have served to bring the two churches so soon 
 to trust each other aud unite on their common standards. 
 
 The friends of reunion are now anxiously looking to the As- 
 semblies of 1869 to complete the work. This may be done if 
 the action of the presbyteries of the two bodies shall indicate 
 a readiness for it. Some have erroneously supposed that this 
 can not be done constitutionally, unless three-fourths of the 
 presbyteries of each body shall have formally approved the 
 same basis. There is no constitutional provision for reunion 
 or for division. As reunion does not involve a change or modi- 
 fication of the constitution, as some may suppose, it is not, 
 nor has it ever been, necessary to overture the subject to the 
 presbyteries. Ifit were true that it involved a constitutional 
 change, a vote of only a majority of the presbyteries would be 
 requisite to carry it. The provision of the Constitution on 
 this subject is as follows: ‘‘ Before any overtures or regula- 
 tions proposed by the Assembly to be established as constitu- 
 tional rules shall be obligatory on the churches, it shall be 
 necessary to transmit them to all the presbyteries, and to re- 
 ceive the returns of at leasta majority of them, in writing, ap- 
 proving thereof.” (Form of Government, Chapter x11, Sec- 
 tion vi.) The opinion that a vote of three-fourths of the 
 presbyteries is necessary to consummate reunion must have 
 been inferred from the provision in the “‘ Terms” reported by 
 the Joint Committee. T'his was first proposed to put a qui- 
 etus upon the charge of precipitancy, which was so widely 
 made in both bodies. The right to form a union, like the 
 right to agree upon a division, which both parties held in 
 1837, may be regarded as extra-constitutional. To heal a 
 division can not be unconstitutional. It may be that explicit 
 authority to form a union with an independent church may 
 be wanting, and yet it is implied in the powers belonging to 
 the General Assembly ‘‘ of superintending the concerns of the 
 whole church,” (Ch. xii, Sec. v.) Unions have been formed 
 by the highest judicatory of the Church with other bodies in 
 several cases: with the Presbytery of Suffolk in 1749; be- 
 tween the Synods of New York and Philadelphia in 1758; 
 with the Presbytery of Duchess County in 1766; with the 
 Presbytery of Donnegal in 1768; with the Presbytery of 
 Charleston in 1811; and with the Associate Reformed Synod 
 in 1822. In all these cases independent bodies were brought 
 into union with our Church, and it was done by a mere reso- 
 lution of our highest court. 
 
 The Assemblies of 1869 have not only the right to com- 
 plete the reunion, but it is expedient to do so, ‘The overture 
 sent to the Presbyteries has failed in one branch, and the As- 
 
11 
 
 semblies now stand in relation to the question of reunion as 
 before the negotiations were commenced, except that it is now 
 well known that the two churches earnestly desire to be one, 
 and it is perhaps as well known, or will be by the time of the 
 meeting of the Assemblies, on what terms they desire reunion, 
 The instruments have been tuned up-to concert pitch and the 
 strings are safe. The Assemblies are as well prepared to fin- 
 ish the work of union as in any case in the past. The defeat 
 of the basis reported has proceeded in the Old School body on 
 thisassumption. The defeat was made sure by the Pittsburgh 
 Circular. That paper asked for the amendment of the first 
 item of the report by leaving out the Smith and Gurley Amend- 
 ments; and it said, in regard to the article thus amended, 
 *‘ As it involves the creation of no newconstitutional rule, nor 
 any modification of a preéxisting rule, 7t 7s self-evident that 
 provided it is, in the mean time, indicated as the preference 
 of the Church, it may be adopted by the Assemblies of 1869 
 and made the basis of reunion by a mere resolution.” This 
 “¢ preference” has been declared by the Old School body almost 
 without exception. I=f the action of the presbyteries of the 
 other branch, in accordance with the recent suggestions of its 
 Committee on reunion, shall favor the change of the First Arti- 
 cle and the dropping of the Tenth Article, there can be no ob- 
 jection to union by the action of the Assemblies. Action by 
 the presbyteries of one body in favor of union on the standards 
 by vote of the Assemblies, and action in the other branch in 
 favor of union upon the overture sent down, amended by leav- 
 ing out the Tenth Article and the explanatory clauses of the 
 First Article, are the same in substance and spirit, if not in 
 form. ‘T’hose who are not prepared for reunion may be ex- 
 pected to raise objections. It may be made a question whether 
 the action of the Old School Presbyteries in favor of union upon 
 the standards pure andsimple is properly interpreted, as ruling 
 out the Smith and Gurley amendments only, or, with them, 
 also the Tenth Article, or also all other items of the terms of 
 union. Mere technicalities, however, are not likely to hinder 
 the Assemblies from acting, if they feel that they have the 
 mind of the Church. It is to be expected that the friends of 
 reunion will carefully inquire what is needed, even for the 
 sake of form, and fully inform the Assemblies or instruct their 
 Commissioners as to their wishes. 
 
 The question as to whether the Tenth Article shall be re- 
 tained or expunged from the terms of union is one of little 
 importance. A minority in both bodies are opposed to the 
 examination of ministers in passing from one presbytery to 
 another, as a means of defense against unsound doctrine, for 
 
12 
 
 the reason that this class believe it to be an invasion of the 
 rights of the ministry. They hold that the constitution has 
 provided other and better safeguards against error. These mi- 
 norities have, of late years, been diminishing among the New 
 School and increasing in the other body. At present, at least, 
 four-fifths in each branch are agreed on the subject. This is 
 manifest from the action of the Assemblies and Presbyteries 
 of each, in 1868, approving the Tenth Article, which abolishes 
 the imperative clause of the examination rule of the Assem- 
 bly of 1837 and yet acknowledges the right of examination. 
 Both bodies hold the right of examination; and that it should 
 be practiced only in exceptional cases. The action in favor of 
 the Tenth Article gives satisfactory evidence, moreover, that 
 the suspicions and jealousies which led to the adoption of 
 the imperative rule have passed away, and that latitudinarian 
 tendencies, charged in former times, do not exist. It is incon- 
 ceivable that the two churches should have approved the 
 Tenth Article on any other supposition than agreement in 
 regard to the right of examination and mutual confidence. 
 
 The question arises, ‘‘ Why should the Tenth Article be 
 dropped after having been approved by large majorities in 
 both churches?” The answer is, that it is ‘‘ more expressive 
 of mutual confidence” that the basis should be “‘ the stand- 
 ards pure andsimple.” If explanations and covenants are not 
 wise or needful in regard to doctrine, much more are they not 
 80 in regard to order and discipline. Our common standards 
 require us to receive and adopt our system of doctrine, while 
 we are only required to approve of our government and dis- 
 cipline. Ifthe Tenth Article is retained, the union will not 
 be upon our standards alone, but upon them with a special in- 
 terpretation that will have the force of a constitutional rule. 
 ‘We may safely trust each other in this matter, in regard to 
 which there is such harmony of sentiment. 
 
 It would be surprising if those who hold extreme views in 
 regard to the right of examination should be found unwilling 
 to dispense with the Tenth Article. Ifit remains in the terms 
 of union, those who are in favor of the imperative rule of the 
 Assembly of 1837, and who may believe that there may be 
 need of such an enactment at some future time of danger 
 from the prevalence of error, will be cut off by the covenant of 
 reunion, if it is retained, from invoking the aid of such a pre- 
 ventive. On the other hand, those who deny the right of ex- 
 amination ought surely to be willing to give up an article de- 
 claring that ‘‘It is agreed that the presbyteries possess the 
 right to examine ministers applying for admission from other 
 presbyteries.” A distinguished minister, who voted against 
 the Tenth Article in the Harrisburg Assembly, said: “I am 
 
13 
 
 willing, for the sake of reunion, to grant the right of examin- 
 ation, but I can not vote that the right is granted in the Con- 
 stitution.” Every one holding such views will surely be will- 
 ing to set aside an article. that expounds the Constitution in 
 opposition to his own convictions. 
 
 The Tenth Article may well be dropped, not only because 
 of the substantial agreement of the two churches in regard to 
 the doctrine of examination, not only because its retention is 
 in violation of the fraternal and popular idea of union upon 
 the standards, without explanation or pledge, but also because 
 the question is fully and properly met by the Fourth Article 
 of the ‘“‘ Terms of Union” reported by the Joint Committee, 
 which provides that ‘‘ No precedent which does not stand ap- 
 proved by both the bodies shall be of any authority until re- 
 established in the united body.” This article, which was also 
 a part of the first report of the Joint Committee, was intended 
 mainly as an adjustment of the question of examination. For 
 this purpose it is all-sufficient and to be preferred to the Tenth 
 Article. Precedents establishing the right of examination by 
 the presbyteries stand approved by both bodies. Before the 
 division there had been six deliverances on the subject, viz. : 
 in 1801, 1816, 1825, 1834, 1835 and 1837, in all of which the 
 right of examination is affirmed, except in that of 1834 
 There has been no action/since the division, except by the 
 New School Assembly of 1838, and this only repealed the im- 
 perative clause of the action of 1837. The Fourth Article of 
 the ‘*‘ Terms of Union,” therefore, secures in better form all 
 that is needed in regard to examination, as well as all other 
 precedents. If, however, the Fourth Article were also dropped, 
 the reunion of two independent bodies on equal terms would 
 nullify all conflicting precedents and usages, until approved 
 by the united body. ‘There seems to be no reason for retain- 
 ing the Tenth Article, while there are many considerations in 
 favor of abandoning it. 
 
 It may be regarded as settled that a majority in both 
 churches will be ready to give up the explanatory clauses of 
 the First Article. While there is no good reason for the 
 opinion that these explanatory clauses allow a latitude of 
 opinion or expression that would impair the integrity of the 
 Calvinistic system, it must be confessed that they do imply 
 distrust and suspicion. On the other hand, if they are left 
 out and the standards alone are made the basis, there is in 
 them all the liberty than any man can ask. No one will say 
 that the Smith and Gurley amendments provide for any more 
 liberty than is secured in Chapter xx, Section 2, where it is 
 said: ‘‘God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it 
 free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which 
 
14 
 
 are in an anything contrary to his word, or beside it in mat- 
 -ters of faith or worship.” 
 
 This article will be closed by a suggestion in regard to the 
 method of consummating the union, which is the result of a. 
 patient investigation and observation of the reunion movement 
 from the first. The suggestion is that the union be formed 
 by a concurrent resolution of the Assemblies of 1869, upon 
 the basis of our own common standards, which is the basis of 
 union in both churches, recognizing the independency, the 
 equality and the authority of each body, with no other bond 
 of union than the common formula of subscription, which 
 binds the office-bearers and church courts of each body to each 
 other, and to their common symbols of faith and government, 
 There is now no need of a single one of the ‘“‘ Terms of Union” 
 reported by the Joint Reunion Committee. They have served 
 their purpose, and, like the articles of union, at first agreed 
 upon between the Old and New School Presbyterians in the 
 South, may safely be dismissed. The two churches are now 
 known to be of one mind and heart in regard to every ques- 
 tion which has been the subject of negotiation, Unity has 
 been ascertained and confidence restored. 
 
 Such a reunion will be consistent with the action of the As- 
 semblies of 1866, by which the negotiations were inaugurated. 
 The proposition of these bodies was union ‘at the earliest 
 time, consistent with agreement in doctrine, order and policy,” 
 union upon “ the prevalence of mutual confidence and love,” 
 and union ‘‘upon our common standards.” Neither Assem- 
 bly speaks of any basis but ‘“‘ our common standards.” The 
 Old School Assembly directs its Committee “‘ to suggest mea- 
 sures ” if union is found to be ‘‘ desirable and practicable.” 
 The New School Assembly indorse this action and instruct 
 their Committee “‘ to confer on the subject” with the Com- 
 mittee of the other branch. . The conference of the Joint Com- 
 mittee, and the discussion and action upon their reports, have 
 made manifest that reunion ‘‘is desirable and practicable.” 
 What more, therefore, is needed than to dismiss all outside 
 covenants and come together on the common standards? Itis 
 only required that the Assemblies of 1869 resolve to unite and 
 the work will be done and well done. 
 
 An examination of the several ‘Terms of Union” will make 
 it manifest that reunion upon the standards, by a simple res- 
 olution, without the adoption of any one of these terms, is 
 all that is needed. There is no need even of the Lirst Article. 
 Why should it be said: ‘“‘The Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testament shall be acknowledged to be the inspired word of 
 God, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice”? Our 
 
ae 
 
 common standards declare this, and all our ministers, ruling 
 elders and deacons, of both churches, have been ordained by 
 its solemn acknowledgment. Why should the contract of 
 union say: ‘T'he Confession of Faith shall continue to be re- 
 ceived and adopted as containing the system of doctrines 
 taught in the Holy Scriptures”? Our common standards 
 and our common ordination vows provide for this continu- 
 ance. Why should we say: ‘‘The Government and Disci- 
 pline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States shall 
 be approved as containing the principles and rules of our pol- 
 ity’? Are we to take new vows? Reunion will not absolve 
 any one from the responsibility of his ordination engagements. 
 If the Assemblies unite upon the standards, as a basis, by a 
 simple resolution, the united church will be as firmly bound 
 to all that the First Article provides for, as are the sep- 
 arate churches. Let the First Article be dismissed, giving it 
 the credit of having been very useful, in bringing the two 
 churches to see their agreement in doctrine. As to the Sec- 
 ond Article, which provides that ‘All the ministers and 
 churches, embraced in the two bodies, shall be admitted to 
 the same standing, in the united body, which they may hold 
 in their respective connections, up to the consummation of 
 the union,” it can not be doubted that a resolution, uniting 
 two independent bodies, carries with it this equal standing. 
 A special act of ‘the united body would be necessary to de- 
 prive any minister or church of equal standing with all others. 
 The language, “‘shall be admitted,” implies that union will 
 make a new church, in which the rights of its office-bearers 
 and church courts need to be defined—which is certainly er- 
 roneous. No one can fear that an attempt will be made to 
 deprive any minister or church of good standing in the united 
 church, for any preéxisting cause. In regard to the imper- 
 fectly organized churches, for which this article also pro- 
 vides, happily we are agreed, and have so expressed ourselves 
 by vote. We can moreover settle this matter, if it does not 
 take care of itself, with less friction without a written cove- 
 nant, than with one. The Third Article provides that the 
 United General Assembly shall adjust the boundaries of the 
 synods and presbyteries. It will have the right to fix the 
 boundaries of synods, under thegconstitution, and it is best 
 to leave the boundaries of the presbyteries to the synods, 
 where it is left by the constitution. This article is therefore, 
 to say the ieast, unnecessary. The Fourth Article provides 
 that: ‘‘The official records of the two churches, for the 
 period of separation, shall be preserved, and held as making 
 up the one history of the church.” This is the necessary 
 result of the union of two independent bodies, on equal terms. 
 
16 
 
 It may be well, however, for the Assemblies, in the act of 
 union, to state the fact that the two bodies unite as indepen- 
 dent churches of equal standing and authority, though this 
 would be the case if no formal recognition were made of it. 
 This article also provides that, ‘‘ No rule of precedent, which 
 does not stand approved by both bodies, shall be of any au- 
 thority until reéstablished in the united body.” ‘There is no 
 practical need of this provision. In the case of conflicting 
 precedents, the united body must decide, and in the case of 
 precedents of one body, not approved by the other, or in re- 
 gard to which the other body had not acted, such precedents 
 could not become of effect but by action of the united body 
 reéstablishing them. If a body is not bound by. its own pre- 
 cedents, but may change them, much more is it not bound by 
 precedents approved by only one of its constituent parts. 
 ~The united body could not apply such a precedent, without 
 in the very act approving it, and thereby reéstablishing it. 
 So, then, this part of the article is unnecessary also. If the 
 Old School Assembly, before the union, were to abolish the 
 imperative clause of the Examination Rule of 1837, there 
 would be no conflict in regard to examination, or any other 
 question, and perhaps no rule or precedent left, of any impor- 
 tance, that did not stand approved by both bodies. The £7/th, 
 Sixth, Seventh, Highth, and Ninth Articles are as unnecessary 
 as the first four. The consolidation of the corporate rights 
 of the two bodies, and their application to their proper uses, 
 the reconstruction of the various Committees and Boards, and 
 the views and wishes of the Church in regard to Theological 
 Seminaries, the united Assembly could and would carry out 
 without a covenant. In regard to these questions, there ig 
 no difference of opinion, and there is no need of any further 
 understanding, or of a contract between the presbyteries, 
 When the Assemblies form the union, it will be sufficient to 
 secure confidence in regard to all these matters, if there shall 
 be a mere statement, perha »ps in the preamble ‘of the act of 
 union, recognizing the fact that the expressed mind of the 
 church indicates the proper adjustment of all interests con- 
 cerned. The Assemblies of 1869 will be in session, in the 
 same place, at the same time, and it will be easy to secure 
 such understanding or actioy in each body, before the union, 
 as will assure to each pari that the action of the united 
 body in regard to matters of administration will be such as 
 will be acceptable, No basis is needed but the basis of each 
 church—our common standards. There is not the shadow 
 of danger, that the united Church will do anything against the 
 views which the progress of the discussions and negotiations 
 has shown to prevail among a large majority of both ‘branches, 
 
# 
 
 CONYBEARE AND HOWSON’S 
 
 Life and Epistles: of St. Paul. 
 
 J HE ONLY Comprete ano [J AND eee ‘DITION. 
 
 The Two Volumes of the London Edition in One, wih the Text and Notes 
 entire, and the Maps and Illustrations, at 
 the reduced price of 
 
 TERE DOLLARS. 
 
 Buy iS Edition of the nearest Bookseller, and do not wait for 
 f Agents to visit you. 
 . * 
 The appeartnce of two abridged, and otherwise incomplete, editions of CONYBEARE & HOWSON’S LIFE AND 
 EPISTLES OF 41. PAUL, has induced the publication of the original work, in a form and at a price which must bring 
 it within the 2 Ach of every one who may desire to possess it. This volume, which is sold at the unprecedentedly low 
 
 price of THREE DOLLARS, 
 
 contains over ONE THOUSAND pages, giving the text of the original London edition entire, as well as all the 
 notes. These notes, which are essential to the full understanding of the text, are greatly abridged, and frequently 
 altogether omitted from the editions already referred to, thus seriously impairing the value of the work. The 
 COMPLETE and_UNABRIDGED edition moreover contains 
 
 17 MAPS (several of large size) and 82 ENGRAVINGS, 
 
 mearly double the number given in any other edition produced in this country. Published at less than half the price 
 ‘of the original two-volume American edition, and at just one-seventh the present price of the London quarto edition, 
 this work, which has so long been regarded as one of the noblest contributions ever made to the literature of the New 
 
 Testament, may be commended anew to all Biblical Students. 
 a 
 
 NOTICES OF THE COMPLETE AND UNABRIDGED EDITION. 
 
 From T. D. WOOLSEY, D.D. LL.D., President of Yale College. 
 I should regard the ORIGINAL WoRK as far better than the most skilfully exeeuted abridgment.” 
 From Rev. Prof. H. B. HACKETT, D.D., Bapt. Theological Seminary, Newton Centre, Mass, 
 
 “Tt is superfluous to speak of the merits of this work. The full edition contains nothing which the authors did 
 not regard as important to the illustration of their subject, and nothing can be left out without impairing the value of 
 
 the work.”? 
 From Rev. W. ADAMS, D.D., Pastor of Madison Square Presbyterian Church, N. ¥. 
 “Tt would be injustice to the authors and to their subject to attempt any abridgment of such a Work.” 
 From the New York Independent. : 
 “This edition includes the entire work, unabridged, and we should prefer it thus rather than Howson’ 8 own 
 abridgment (People’s Edition). 
 
 3 S1zES AND STYLES OF THE COMPLETE AND UNABRIDGED EDITION, 
 s # TWO VOLS. IN ONE, WITH ALL THE MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 . Onan OPO: OVO. ClObN GS. ada: sins oo ees lve ee eae e ec Cavite’ ve Re elta sis vale BORO 
 
 PER ORD 2 gS Se he. rk a oa, Ai Ae et SLE ea Oa 5 50 
 VE armen OG MOET Ed See ii Mee ree Fem TN Lhe sw sons Mes ble dice aie. c< cliceicielestceve ciels cxtuan aeOO 
 
 ’ N. B.—This same edition, with an Introduction by Rev. Bishop Matthew Simpson, may be 
 procured through the Agents of Messrs. E. B. Treat & Co., New York. 
 
 THE TWO-VOLUME LIBRARY EDITION.—REDUCTION IN PRICE. 
 The two-volume edition of ConyBEARE & Howson’s LiFe oy@Sr. Pav, printed upon heavy white paper, and 
 produced in a style fitting it for the library, is now published at thafollowing prices : 
 
 LOPS MMEREE cioiie staitidis-« cablscciec era's oh'e\s\s di e's oad eeeeveeoee Geer ee ese yee e ee eee $5 0O 
 Rl alt omer tials MMOLOGCO. eh. sce sc clliaie © coPAts 6 dreiclebleccigle stele Ge rcelan coeO.00 
 MVE OY ODOC EM Re orale cate calor vaalntac cite fe tino aE eialels Cu Mele cele a 00 ie ceccdee sebaroo 
 
 vopies sent by mail, post-paid, upon receipt af price.) 
 
 CHARLES SORIBNER & CO, 
 
 654 Broadway, New York. 
 
a AT 
 
 —. a 2 059259140 
 
 OO DAA ELON ee 
 te : Pare Volume. Fifth ae ae - 
 
 Tre May number will begin the Ninth Volume and the Fifth Year'of Hours AT 
 Home. Our arrangements for the New Year secure increased interest, value, and 
 variety in the contents of the Magazine. Among the papers which will appear in the - 
 May and following numbers will be: 
 
 Prof. Noah Porter’s valuable Series on “Books and Reading.” Continued. 
 
 “Wotherless Girls,” by the author of ‘‘Mary Powell,” completed in the June 
 number, and a new and highly intereswuizg Serial begun in J i 
 
 a“ Chrinsiphat Kroy,” by the author of ‘‘ Storm-Cliff,” will be continued. 
 
 Highly interesting papers by the United States Consul-General of Syria on ‘ ie i me 
 Sources of the Jordan,” ‘‘ The Lake and the River of Palestine,” ‘‘The Bedouin Arabs,” = 4a 
 ‘¢ A Summer in Mount Lebanon,” ‘‘ Races and Religions of tne East,” ‘‘ Education in 2 Si 
 Syria,” ‘‘A Day on the Other Side of Jordan,” ete. - 
 
 “The Russian Peasant,” and other papers on Russia, by the United States Consul © 
 at Moscow. 
 
 Articles on Popular Science, by Prof. DE VERE. 
 
 Interestiiig Essays on * The Romances of Arthur,” their Origin and Growth, their 
 Influence on Society, and their Influence on English Literature, by Prof. A. J. CURTIS. 
 
 Papers on Various Topics, by Prof. E. P. Evans, of the Univaiat of Michigan, — 
 
 Translations of the Choicest Papers found in the Foreign Magazines. we 
 
 “The Palais Royal,” “The Ruins of Clisson,” and other valuable descriptive 
 papers from G. M. TOWLE, 
 
 “ Palestine Explorations ;” ‘‘ History of the Jesuit Missions i in China ;” ‘* Yale Col- 
 lege One Hundred Years Ago;” ‘‘ The Irish System of Prison Discipline ; 0&6 Neander’s 
 Last Birth-Day;” ‘‘ Money Matters and Matrimony;” ‘Gottfried August Biirger;” 
 by S. S. Conant; ‘‘Church Building,” ‘‘ Recent Geographical Discoveries in Africa,” 
 ‘“‘The Laws of Hereditary Descent,” by Dr. G@. M. BEARD; ‘*The Paradise of Old 
 Sailors;” ‘‘ The Cannibals of Equatorial West Africa,’ by Rev. ALBERT BUSHNELL. 
 ‘A Day with a Roman Gentleman ;” ‘‘ Tenant Houses,” by C. L. BRacn, ‘ Voices of 
 the Spring,” by RAy PALMER, Saal a large number of obit articles on a great hiner at 
 of topics, by some of the best writers of the day. 
 
 Poems, by ‘‘H. H.,” Howard Glyndon, Mrs. Hinsdale, Mary Barker Dodge, Miss 
 Pollard, Carl Spencer, tala Brown, Gilmore Simms, C. H. A. Bulkley, A. D. F, Ran- 
 dolph, and others. 
 
 Notes of Travel, Short Stories, and Miscellaneous Papers, by various writers. 
 
 ‘Books and re Abroad ” will continue to keep our readers posted up in n the 
 matter of new books in the Old World. de 
 
 Increased space and attention will be given to ‘‘ Leisure Moments” and “ Titemmees me 
 of the Day,” making them still more attractive and valuable features of the Magazine. 
 
 NOW IS A FAVORABLE TIME TO SUBSCRIBE, | 
 
 TO RENEW SUBSCRIPTIONS, AND FORM CLUBS FOR ANOTHER YEAR, — 
 
 While the offer of Premiums for single subscribers was withdrawn on the first of 
 January, we still continue to offer any @ our $1.50 premiums to any old subscriber Sait 
 sending us $6 to pay for two years in :Wyance. And any person on sending one new 4 an 
 subscription and renewing his own for ec a sane be entitled to that beautiful ¢ 
 Chromo, ‘‘ Home in the Hedge.” ie 
 
 Wheeler & Wilson’ s Sewing Machine. ey oe 
 for twenty Subscriptions with $60, we are still able to offer this unrivalled Manis: 3 
 price, $55. Make up your Club and send on the names at the earliest moment practicable, re 
 
 cae 
 oe 
 
 © ’ ene aa 
 
 ee oun jo xoquann qovo ut ponupiu0s oa TrHaa he