Supreme Court Sessions.

Southland Times, Issue 10201, 5 July 1889, Page 2

Supreme Court Sessions.

♦ [By Telegraph.] : Wellington, July 4. Peter Mickleson pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, and was sentenced to two years hard labour. Chbistchurch, July 4. . The criminal sessions were completed today. |Patrick Dunn was sentenced to eighteen months for robbery from the person.'

The Relation of the Presbyterian Church to Her Confession. »

'111. (»* PRESBYTERIAN.) Another cause that has contribute J to bring our Churoh into her present position in regard to her Confession is, that while ehe has been laudaMy engaged in extending her bounds so as to keep p*ca with an increasing and widely scattered population, her students were left to form their estimate of the doe'riues of our Confession from tbe prelections of on« who could not expound them sympathetically, inasmuch as he himself had not accepted them honestly. Indeed recent discussions bave proved that with .some who call themselves orthodox, the opinions of such men at McLeod ..Campbell, Robertson, Maurice, and Macrne are accepted on the teaching of oar Ooufession. in preference to the expositions of ' Cum in^hatp and Hodge. The enemies of R formation theology bave so persistently caricatured Calvinism that it sepnjf* to be lak»sn for granted that we have no defence to make. Unfortunately they have b-en able •to point to uuguardtd utterances on the part of some who hoW our doctrines ; and these utterance?, grotesquely magnified, have found their way into the light litorature of tho day. In this way, with the public generally, end with many calling themselves Prt-80} terians, this carica-

ture is accepted as a true and faithful portrait; so tha f , as a R-.verend Doctor of the Scottish Establishment lately expressed himself, •• Caiviniatn is presented iv a repulsive aspect, and has become unfashionable." In addition to these causes, we aauat remember that several or tlie Presbyterian Churches have revised tbe Coi-ftssion by explaining what they consider the true meaning of certain passages whess mean* ing has been disputed ; and others, !ikc> our o*vn, have comrsorrced a movement in that direction. It is not however to be assumed that all who join in such a movement are etfaoiies of Oonfees-ioos in general, or of ours in particular. I b liove that the great bulk of iho majority who at last Synod voted for the Church entering on this movement ore loyal to our Confession, and consist of a small cumber who have difficulties, and a very considerable number who wish to help them out of them. I thefefore think the Otiureh may look forward to the exnmioation of her standards without alarm. But many will be sorry to see tho energies of our young Church diverted from 'her proper work and turned to discussions on creeds—discussions for which many of her office bearers and most of her members «re not well prepared. I now propose to examine a fow of the objections that have been urged against our Confession, so as to arrive at some idea of the Church's duty in the matter. (a) It is alleged that the progress of tbe age demands a complete revision of the Confession. In answering this iCm net be borne in mind that one purpose of Con fetsions is to record and exhibit known truths. In tbia light we murst not forget tho made and recorded in the various Confeesione. In the early a>»eß of Christianity tbe doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ wera brought out and recorded to meet errors that had cropped up in the Church. These doctrines have come down to us almost in the very words of the early councils. Thereafter tbe Augustinian doctrine of grace was added. lu'Raformation times,"justification by faith " was recorded in all the Confessions. Armenian orrors were met by the canons of tbe Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confesison : Amyraldian errors by the. " JB'ormula Consensus Helvetica," tbe last of the Reformation Confessions. The Calvinists of England and Scotland were early brought into violent conflict with the divine right of kings, which with the Stuarts meant the right of tho state to trample on the Church. In opposition to this they traced the \\ae of demarcation between Church and state in their Confession ; and in our own day 474 of the best of Scotland's ministers abandoned their Church emoluments, aod left a yet unanswered protest against the attempt of the civil courts to place the heel of the state on the neck of the Church. la later times hereniarchg have contented themselves with furbishing up old heresies, so as to make them look as good as new. And orthodox divines have occupied themselves with exhibiting the grand old truths in new and striking light, rather than in attempting to discover from Scripture truths that were hitherto unknown. Thope who assert a want of progress in confessions overlook the progress already made. At all events, to make out-a case against ourt>, tbey must point out an important Scripture doctrine not recorded, or a heresy not met and condemned. Could tbey do this it would be as the breath of life to a com mittee of our Church — a committee like to die of having nothing to do.

(b). It is alleged that a strict adherence to our Confession stands in the way of union among the Churches. Let ue see if this is borne oat by facts. la 1839, when the Evangelical party bad gained the ascendancy, tb.fi Old Light Burghers, recognizing tbat the Cburch of, Scotland was now in the position to which the secession fathers had looked forward and appealed when they left it, knocked at the door of the Establishment and were admitted. Strange to say the very disruption that broke up the Scottish Establishment wat another step to union. Id 1843 the original seceders at the Glasgow Assembly pre sented an address to the Free Cburch, recognising io her the Church of John K a ox, of Andrew Melville, and of Alex. Henderson. This led to negotiations, and in 1852 that body— the Ciiurch of the Erskines, the Fishers, and the McGriee— was incorporated with the Free Csurcb. And yet again in 1876 the Reformed Presbyterian Obnrch, that in days of per. Becntion had shown how Christians can sufE r, and in days of danger how they 1 can fight, tbat after turning the tide of battle at Dunkeld and securing for Scotland the "glorious Revolution," was re warded by exclusion from the Establishment. Toat Ohurcb, bringing with her memories of Gruthrie, Gargill, Camaroa,

and R*nwrick, and bearing her old and battered but untarnished bine banner em blazoned with^the legend, " For Cnriat's Crown and G >venant," came and sat down in the Free Church Assembly, and the Churches were one. Now all these unions were accomplished on the line of asfciot adherence to the doctrinei of the Westminster Confession. * On the other hand, what was it that in 1873 laid an arrest on the negotiations with the D oiled Presbyterian Church and pre vented the conearnm&tion of an incorporating union ? Mainly the fact that at one time that Church had permitted doctrines not in accordance with the Westminster 'Standard*, and the suspicion (whether well or ill' founded I . know noi) that theseAmyraldian views were still permitted to exist. In/short the greatest obstacle to union-was that the United Pre*byteriao Church had departed, or was suspected of having departed, from the Westminster Confession in regard to the doctrine of the atonement. The first requisite for union is that tbe Churches be essentially one in doctrine. A union in the truth is tbe only true union. If the larger unions of the "newer day" are to be brought about, in any ot ;or way, whither by compromising Bcripture truths, or by skilfully constructed ambiguous Confessions, it were better far that they should remain in the womb of futurity. Such means oan effect merely an outward uajfqra}ity-r-nQ ietl union, Tan©, are

two things Presbyterians are not likely to part with, even for tbe sake of union— Galvinistic doctrine and Presbyterian polity. ■