MR JOHNSTON AND THE CONFESSION.

Clutha Leader, Volume XVI, Issue 832, 27 June 1890, Page 6

MR JOHNSTON AND THE CONFESSION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — It is with reluctance that I return to Mr Johnston's Articles, of which your readers must by this time think they have had enough. I should not like, however, to disappoint the author ,by declining his challenge. In the review, while acknowledging that Mr Johnston is commendably sparing in his use of strong language, I ventured to say that he' would have done better to omit a good many references to the ignorance, the mistakes, and the disingennonsness of a party which includes our professors and some of the oldest and most esteemed ministers of the church. Our author accepts the praise, but will admit no blame. He challenges me to produce a single such objectionable reference. In response, I quote from the Articles — ' Recent events have proved that there exists within the church a party (small, it may be) who are not prepared faithfully to apply, because they have not unreservedly accepted, our present Confession ' (p. 8). ' There are in the position of judges some whoso sympathies are with those who transgress, not with the law transgressed ' (p. 9). 'They call themselves men of progress, but it is a progress backwards to the obscurity and confusion from which the Reformers, and especially Calvin, rescued the churches ' (p. 43). ' The changes made are so trifling in their nature, or so unfounded, that one is tempted to suspect that the real objection is not to these points, but to the fundamental doctrine of the Confession' (p. 53). 'It is this dishonesty (asking for explanations when change of doctrine is really wanted) that, makes us unwilling to put our Confession in such hands for revision ' (p. 58). Now the only party coming within the sweep of these animadversions is the party which advocates the adoption of fcho U.P. Declai-atory xlct, and that party includes the professors and many of the oldest and most esteemed ministers of the church. That the words I have quoted, and others for which I cannot ask you to find room, attribute ignorance, error, and disingenuousness to the members of that party, will, I think, be obvious to your readers. But if Mr Johnston does not wish the words to be so understood, I, am quite willing to put on them his own construction. The question as to whether the Articles are written in entire good taste is, after all, one of small importance. From Mr Johnston's labored retort, it is evident that he has taken very much to heart my description of his reading as confined within too narrow limits. Your intelligent leaders would perceive, however, that this description was applied only in view of Mr Johnston's offer to guide his brethren in the eldership through the intricacies of the revision question. Mr Johnston; as a painstaking student of the science and art of ecclesiastical navigation, merits only praise, and I award it to him without stint. But Mr Johnston undertaking to steer the ship over the bar must expect to have his qualifications carefully scrutinised. It would be poor consolation to a wrecked crew j to be told by their pilot that he had done as much as could have been expected of him, seeing that he ' went out into the wilderness as a pioneer 25 years ago.' I must repeat, even, at the risk of again hurting,. Mr., jqhnston's feelings, that there is no 'evidence" in';' his pamphlet of any acquaintance, either through i*eading or otherwise, with those great currents of thought

and life which are irresistibly forcing on all tho churches this question of revision. Mr Johnston does not like my array of the authorities, who are against him, and this is not to be wondered at. But he ought to have the courage of his convictions. It is a , poor thiug, under the circumstances, to^ cry out. that ' discussion is being stifled,' that ' the spirit of popery is being imported,' &c. Mr Johnston forgets what he reads. If he look again he will find that I distinctly acknowledge that the question is not to be settled by a mere balancing of authorities. • But the balancing of authorities is in every case perfectly legitimate as an auxiliary operation. Does Mr Johnston not adduce authority "? Is his whole pamphlet not written in somewhat slavish subjection to the authority of Westminster and Dr Cunningham 1 He should sm-ely be the last to vociferate 'I am being overwhelmed by authority.' I do not wish, however, to be too hard on him. A rash disputant who, finding himself down, becomes suddenly sensible of the superincumbent weight of throe entire churches and he knows not how many- D.D.'s of heaviest calibre may bo excused a groan. I regret to find that in his letter Mr Johnston does not maintain the character of smart logician, which I gave him as the writer of the Articles. Here for instance is a pretty bit of reasoning, ' There are about 450 ministers and elders in our church ; Mr Dalryraple thinks it would be difficult to find six anti-Ainyraldists among them. Accord-, ing to him there must be at least 444 Amyraldists.' Non r'eqwitur. Docs Mr Johnston need to be informed that an Amyraldist is one who holds the views of Amyraldus, that an anti-Amy-ruldist is one opposed to the views of that divine, and that our officebearers do not of necessity come under the one category or the other 1 ? He might as reasonably argue that if only six officebearers express disapproval of his Articles, there must be at least 444 who cordially approve of them. But the most remarkable feature of the letter is Mr Johnston's distinct and emphatic declaration that he does not seek to exclude Amyraldists from office in the church. When I came to these words I read them again to make sure that I had made no mistake. No ! There stood the declaration in all the do'initonoss of type and printer's ink. I was perplexed. If ad I then completely misunderstood Mr Johnston's main object in publishing? A very considerable portion of the pamphlet had been read by me as plainly intended to sound a note of warning against Amyraldism and Amyraldists. I had been told on what seemed good authority, that it was because they thought there might be good ground for sounding this note of warning that certain friends had advised the printing of the Articles and offered to contribute to tho cost. Full of perplexity, I turned to the pamphlet and this is what I found on page 13, ' A myraldism is a dangerous error, and believing there exists a desire on the part of some to admit it into our church's creed wo have given this note of warning,' etc. Could anything be clearer? But how does this warning note consist with the latter utterance, * I do not seek to exclude Amyraldists from office in the church ' 1 To reconcile the two would seem a task fitted to tax the ingenuity of a very smart logician indeed. Giving close attention, however, I have discovered how Mr Johnston does it. There are two steps in his process. First, he tolls us that he does not seek to exclude Amyraldism from the Confession. It is excluded already and he only seeks to maintain the exclusion. That is as if some unwelcome friend, coming to Mr Johnston's door, finding it locked and complaining of exclusion, should be answered from within, ' I do not exclude you. You are excluded and I simply, " Keep things as they are." Secondly, he assures us that though he is doing his best to prevent Amyraldism entering the creed, he does not seek to exclude Amyraldists from office in the church. Calamy and Baxter, he reminds us, were Amyraldists, and they both ' exercised their pastorate under the Confession as it now stands.' That is to say, Mr .Johnston strongly urges the continued posting in large letters over the church's wicket-gato of office, ' Amyraldism strictly prohibited ' (Confession, sec. viii., 8), and then to- any Amyraldists hanging doubtfully about he says, ' You may pass in, gentlemen. Your friends Oalamy and Baxter arc inside.' It is only too evident that Mr Johnston's logic has sadly deteriorated since his last appearance in public, but he has grown considerably in charity. On the whole he has gained. If we esteem the logician! less we esteem the man more. He has himself given the coup de grace to a good deal that he has written, but I congratulate him on having come to a better state of mind, and I do it none the less heartily as having contributed in a humble way to the improvement. The tonic denounced j by the patient as ' the concentrated essence of bitterness ' has had an excellent effect. — I am, &c, Ales. M. D alrtmple.