THE CONFESSION OF FAITH.

Clutha Leader, Volume XVII, Issue 835, 18 July 1890, Page 6

THE CONFESSION OF FAITH.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— l have no idea where Mr Dalrymple found warrant for saying that I ;am abandoning the field of controvers} 7 : ■PerTjips the wish was ■ father to^ ithe thought. Tf someone has led -him to, suppose so, and that thereforo he. might make charges with, impunity, he has made a mistake. Certainly he ought to retire. ,He is angry. . . • . , Your, readers will remember that he charged. me with ignorance. of the ''great, currents of "thought and'life ;" "birt when' they arc placed before your readers he ]

I j-t : : —r does not like the look of them. Some of ' tliem are decidedly ugly. I have a word more ;to say about them ; bat IE must first rebut his charges of calumny and falsehood that in a frenzy of rage he'hurls at me.. ' ■ - ■ ■ ■ ' 1 am not sure that I understand, his second paragraph; but if it means that I have charged him with holding all or any one of the seven views mentioned, he reads into my words a meaning that they cannot bear. My words are, "To currents ' like these Mr Dalrymple has more than- once indicated his -readiness- to commit the church." When I used those words I said nothing but what is warranted by what he has, written. Tor (1) Mr Dalrymple, while telling us that he -.holds "no theory of future probation," yet in a long letter to the Presbyterian- of. August, .18.88,.', indicated his readiness to give that doctrine free course in the church. (2)' I have shown that the U. P. Declaratory Act embraces the' doctrine of universal re-, demption, which leads logically to' universal salvation, and which' in its turn leads naturally to future probation. Now I have no reason! to suppose that he holds universal salvation, • and he has told us that ho does not hold futures probation. "Yet he is moving heaven and earth to have the U.P: Declaratory Act, that leads to both, made part of the creed of the church. (3) Why did he allude to those currents", of thought at all, if they were hot currents to which he thought the church could be ; entrusted ? : And (4) in singling out one, the grossest, for repudiation, 'docs he not imply that the church may safely be embarked on the others 1 In law the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the others. I would gladly retract the above, but cannot do so till he retracs his plea for Professor S.iltnond, and abandons his advocacy of the U.P. Declaratory Act. So much iEur Mr Dalrymple's charges. In regard to these currents of thought, it is well to remember there is always a progress in error. It would, therefore, be very unwise in the church to deprive herself of the power to deal with it as it develops. Were this Declaratory Act made part of her creed, Mr Dalrymple's successor might preach future probation and offer up prayers for the dead in Puerua Church ; and the Clutha Presbytery, however faithful, would boas powerless to prevent as was the noble lady who thrust her arm into fche boltless staples to protect from ruffian dagger her sovereign, the poefc-kiijg of Scotland. Our mother church ha? just had to deal with those great currents of thought and life. Her college committee and her assembly have censured them in the person of two of her most learned professors. As yet we have only the cablegram of the assembly's censure ; but the college committee's report is now before me. Of both professors they (the committee) say that though their writings do not afford ground for instituting a process ayainst them, they afford ground for profound anxiety, and are fitted to create perplexity and to give offence. Of Dr. Marcus Doris they say that he ought to have handled the subject of inspiration " in a' much more careful and tender way." Also that " the church cannot be too jealous of everything that might shake belief in the authority and trust-worthiness of the inspired i-ecord as the infallible and conclusive rule of faith and practice." In Professor Bruce's case they say : " It has appeared to the committee that the unqualified demand for a new state of church faith and life, and the sweeping protest against prevailing forms of doctrine and modes of teaching, are fitted to. convey to ordinary readers the impression that our conception of Christian theology, and views of the Christian life differ essentially from those which are sactioned by our Lord's teaching. Such a view, if it were really maintained, they (the committee) would deem inconsistent with the position and responsibilites of a minister, and especially of a professor." On the Bth of May last a meeting of 150 ministers and elders condemned this report as ''inadequate" to the offence. In this way the Free Church is watching, guiding, checking, and, where necessary, condemning the currents- of thought instead of allowing the church to be carried by them into the ocean of speculation and error. — I am, &., . Adam D. Johnston. — ♦ TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In your issue of June 6, there i 3 a review of a pamphlet — a series of arlicles — by A. D. Johnston, Kaihiku, on the Confession ; the critique is over the name, Alex. M. Dalrymple. We presume he is the rev. of that name and pastor of the Puerua congregation. He says that Mr Johnston's reading on the question he handles seems *o,be within narrow limits yet so far as it goes, gives evidence of iii- : dus try and carefulness. Well, to a.som'o,vvhat widely and' somewhat carefully read" reader, your reviewer .vfquld appear to be neit her widely nor" carefully ' read — carefully read ho certainly, is -riot, as this production of 'his" witnesses.' For 'instance, on page 28 of his pamphlet Mr Johnston says : c< A recent attempt, by a minister of our church fo fasten the charge of teaching < that some infants are eternally punished in' hell' on Samuel Rutherford was without the slightest warrant:" He. refers to the Presbyterian of August, 1 18S8, page 38. There it is found that the above charge stands over the name of Dal-, rymple. At considerable length, with clear historical knowledge,' Mr Johnston shows that the said Mr ' Dairy mplo could never have read anything in the 1 writings of the great Rutherford to warrant the charge of such, teaching to him. Had your reviewer— the .pastor of Puerua— read carefully the 6th Article in the pamphlet he would have there seen that there was a question for them to answer—, to wit : — Did he ever read in Rutherford's works the words, "Some infants • are eternally punished in hell, "■■ or words that could be justly construed to bear that meaning? If ho cannot '; it ia.some proof of. his limited or careless. reading. The I way he used Ruth>rfprd's name in his critique in the Presbytbri:iri was meant to cast an odium on the Confession" and so far discredit it's teaching. That he should review this pamphletand not refer; to the severe and just criticism made on him in. the 6th Article, forces on the careful reader "the conclusion that the author of i the -article in* the Presbyterian felt himself {completely unhorsed, by the well-aimed

thrust ;ot; Mr Johnston, that' he had no breath left to enable him. to. foot himself again. : Candor, Christian courtesy, respect for trtith and 'for a great historical name, ' all combine to call upon Mr Dalrymple to verify his. words, give : -his authority if second-hand, or withdraw his ch:£fe against that great man and apologue in the public press for having made it. This calumniating the Confession by unfounded allegations made in the name of venerable history, is a form of evil that needs to be repressed with every firmness of foot. Another astounding instance of it was given us in the synod of our church previous to the last. -Professor Dunlop stood up, there and in a speech on the question of the Confession, stated with the authority of hia position in the church, that about 100 years ago, and so much nearer to the date of the composition of the Confession, when the people were more likely to know what its sentences were intended to mean than we are to-day, he said that at ,that date, so near the issuing of the Confession, there were two notorious cases in which the: Presbyterian Church libelled her. ministers for heresy because they dared to assert the salvation of all deceased infants. The two cases were those of Professor Simpson, of: Scotland, and of - Mr Homphill, of America. Mr Wood, solicitor, Dunedin, in two- letters in the Otago Daily Times, by incontrovertible proof showed that the . respected professor had not the slightest ground in the history of those cases as conducted before the church ■courts for the allegations he made. . No such charge in even the slightest 'degree it seems was made in either of those case?. These and some similar charges have repeatedly been made by the self-supposed learned and advanced thinkers— could it be deemed very improper to call things of that sort advanced or modern'ignoranc 1 . Certainly they manifest a great lack of accurate acquaintance with history. Even more than that they manifest on the part of I the makers of them a reprehensible want of conscientious care to avoid c iluminating those opposed to them on the questions at issue. Mr Johnston's charges of ignorance or dislngeuousuess are certainly well enough warranted, if not really unavoidable, in the conducting of his argument. Gentlemen should be very careful as to what they allege in their arguments in tho name of historical incidents or historical persons. Instead of such vague wide-circled perambulating, let Mr Dalrj'mple set himself to rebut Mr Johnston's conclusions in behalf of his convictions of the Confession's teaching by dealing cloarly with the Confession's own statemen: s on the point in discussion, calling to his aid related history, and show that these statements cannot in good logic, and in face of relevant history, be accepted as meauing what Mr Johnston . says they do. Let him confront Mr Johnston foot to foot and point to point, • and not content himself with distant meaningless passes, imagining in that safe way to awaken fear. As this scribble is perhaps too long already, I will, with, your leave, return bo this review and show other instances of , its careless reading and inaccurate thinking.. — I am, &c, ! An Bldek.