the purity of the faith would not be imperiled by the reunion. Many others in that church, who had hitherto been constrained for similar reasons to doubt and hesitate, were now led to see that the granting of this measure of privilege was but a just act, and one which it involved no compromise of principle or of position to render. And on the other side there were many who, while loyal to the essence of the Confession, had yet been trained in the language and method of the Declaration, and who, while in the main favoring union, yet felt that some degree of guaranteed liberty was indispensable to any union. which should carry with it their heart and sympathy, as well as their formal allegiance, to whom this frank indorsement came as an adequate assurance, that all they had hitherto cherished in modes of theological statement would, in fact, if not in form, be guaranteed to them in the united church. They desired no further latitude in interpretation; they wished for no wider variation from the language of the standards; and when the Assembly, of its own accord, put such honor upon a doctrinal symbol so dear to them, their last occasion for hesitancy was taken away.

Was it not a singular ordering of Providence that the document, which had originated historically in the division of our church, and under which as a banner the separated party had gone out from the ancestral patrimony in sadness and in bitterness of heart, should have been made, by accident as it were, the instrument used of God in the restoration of mutual confidence, and in the actual union of the churches so separated? It was well said in the Assembly (O. S.) of the following year, by one who represented the New School Church before that body, "We recall the generous act of your last Assembly in amply vindicating our orthodoxy by that deliverance which, of your own accord, was entered upon your Minutes, and for which we render you, in the name of all truth and fairness, our sincere thanks." Such a deliverance could never have been made, had not the Declaration been essentially an irenical, rather than a polemical, document. One evidence of this fact should be mentioned here. It is well known that the framers of the Declaration endeavored to increase the list of errors condemned in the Assembly, by adding four others, with which they sup

posed some of their opponents to be justly chargeable.* In this endeavor they were frustrated by the refusal of the Assembly, under the previous question, to consider their amendment. Yet, under these circumstances, they wisely threw away their counter-charges, abandoned all aggressive measures, and rested their case in the simple and calm and peaceable statement of their judgment, on the points urged against them. Time has proven the Christian wisdom of their course. Both in its terms and in its spirit their Declaration became not only a silent protest against the separation, but also a perpetual argument for reunion. Its tones were soft and brotherly, and its voice was the voice of a friend. So far as its influence went, it quieted asperities on both sides, reduced the theological differences to their minimum, brought into view the broad remaining points of agreement, and forever whispered peace. And it may be that, although this was hardly in the hope of those who drafted it, the Declaration has at last subserved one of its highest predestined uses in rendering so easy and so cordial the unification of our divided Presbyterian family.

While all this is true, it should be said, as a safeguard against misapprehension, that the Auburn Declaration constitutes no part of the standards of our church, and is invested ecclesiastically with no degree of symbolic authority. Our symbols furnish still a sufficient basis of church belief, and they need no authoritative commentary. What the Declaration does is simply to exemplify conspicuously those methods of viewing, stating, explaining, and illustrating the doctrines of our symbols which the friends of orthodoxy were and are and will continue to be, we believe, willing to grant to the friends of liberty in the temper of mutual confidence and love. It could not, indeed, be brought into court as a legal guarantee, or as a constitutional impediment to action; in such a possible case, for ex

* The four errors to which allusion is here made, are found in the Minutes, pp. 481-82, of the General Assembly of 1837. It may be of interest to our readers to glance at them in passing:

1. That man has no ability of any kind to obey God's commands or do his duty. 2. That ability is not necessary to constitute obligation.

3. That God may justly command what man has no ability to perform, and justly condemn him for non-performance.

4. That the powers of man to perform the duty required of him have been destroyed by the Fall.

ample, as the trial for heresy of one who held to its view of mediate imputation in preference to the immediate imputation taught in the Confession. Still less could it be properly employed to screen an errorist who should be guilty of promulgating opinions of such a nature as would impair the integrity of the Calvinistic system. The true value of the document lies rather in the deep impression which its contents, its history, its interesting relations to the entire thought and life of the New School body, its providential significance and use in the process of reunion, are together making, and are likely for generations to make, on our united church. We do not believe that any man will ever be convicted of heresy in any presbytery in that church, who simply holds what the Declaration teaches, and who is clearly seen to have wandered no further from the letter and essence of our symbols than the Declaration has itself gone. Its moderate and conciliatory terms, its irenical and catholic temper, its silent testimony to essential truth amid diversities of theory, will be both his safeguard and shield, and the protection and support of the church. And we venture the prediction, that after the conflicts of the past forty years shall have passed wholly into history, and the church, in the strength and glory of her union, shall have gone on to do the grand work assigned to her on this continent and in the world, the Auburn Declaration will continue to speak, not by authority, but in love, as the witness and the guarantee of a unity, which is none the less loyal to the truth. for being generous, and none the less generous for being loyal still to the only recognized standards of our faith.

IV. This estimate of the symbolic value and relations of the Auburn Declaration in the Presbyterian Church sheds some interesting light on the current inquiry, whether the standards. of that church need any present revision. At the risk of wearying our readers beyond measure, we venture to prolong this. article by presenting some suggestions on this point, springing specifically from what has already been expressed. No one will question the right of any company of believers to alter, expand, abridge, amend, or even to throw aside and trample under foot, a creed which they themselves have made. Done in accordance with constitutional rules and provisions, and with such general consent as due regard for the unity and harmony

of the body would demand, such a revision or abrogation might take place at any time, at the option of the church interested. Individual members aggrieved by such changes would have the simple alternative of withdrawing from a communion which had thus modified or abandoned some of its original principles. Other communions in the common Christendom might feel justified in withholding further fellowship with such a church, and the general interests of Christianity might be seen to have suffered seriously from such an act of apostasy. But the abstract right remains, of course, with the church itself, subject only to a solemn responsibility to its Divine Head. And this concession, which involves the cardinal principle of Protestantism, must, as Professor Rainy well observes, be more than a mere idle flourish. "It must exist in the church as a living, practical, powerful principle. Loyalty to the Supreme Word requires it ; and where it is withdrawn or denied, the defense of creeds on Protestant principles becomes impossible."

Standing on this general ground, our own church has not only recognized the fact, that all synods and councils may err in their exposition of Divine Truth, and the further fact that, at the best, no human statements of doctrine are to be regarded as of co-ordinate authority with the Scriptures, but also made adequate provision for the re-statement of her doctrinal formularies,whenever such re-statement shall be constitutionally demanded by her membership. It is well known that alterations were made in the Confession when it first became, by the Adopting Act of 1729, the doctrinal basis of American Presbyterianism; that these alterations were further approved by the act explantory of the Adopting Act, passed in 1736; and that these, together with some changes made in the Larger Catechism, became permanent in the Confession at the final organization of the church in 1788. One of the resolutions of 1788 declares, that "the Form of Government and Discipline, and the Confession of Faith, as now ratified, is to continue to be our Constitution and the Confession of our faith and practice, unalterably, unless two-thirds of the presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly shall propose alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments shall be agreed to and enacted by the General Assembly." In 1804, the Assembly, upon the recommendation of a committee appointed in the

previous year "to consider whether any, and if any, what, alterations ought to be made in the Confession of Faith," resolved, after full consideration, to undertake no such revision. And in 1843 a similar committee, appointed to consider "whether there is any prescribed mode of amending or altering the Confession," while reporting against a specific alteration proposed in the section on marriage, directed attention to the Act of 1788, as giving full warrant for any amendment desired. It is, therefore, competent for the Presbyterian Church, under such rules and precedents, to take up any part or section of her avowed belief, and to amend, alter, abridge, or even reject, as the requisite majority in each case shall determine.

Granting the abstract right and the constitutional power, we may turn to consider the conditions under which revision may wisely be proposed. The general proposition of Professor Rainy, that this should not be regarded by the church as a singular and revolutionary step, but rather as something belonging to her ordinary and recognized responsibilities,* is one which needs to be received with caution, for it is difficult to see how any extensive or radical alterations could be made in the established creed of any Christian church, without involving what might well be termed a revolution. Especially would we hesitate to accept his suggestion, that the church should make regular provision for such revision, if this were carried to the extent of appointing set periods when the whole matter of the church belief should pass statedly under review.† Such provisions might, indeed, be of service in the way of forestalling those more violent processes, by which, in the heat of partisan contention, creeds are sometimes altered or cast aside. It

* Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 276–7. ́

At the risk of trespassing upon the privacy of a most profitable interview with this distinguished author, we venture to express the opinion, that he has been some. what misapprehended in America. It may be believed that he favors no present movement for revision of the Confession in Scotland-that no such movement is likely, in his judgment, to be undertaken-and that the serious proposal of it would probably be fatal to the reputation of any man in the Free Church; and it may be added, that his entire lecture on Creeds (Develop. of Chris. Doct., Lect vi.), together with the notes appended to it, should be read and weighed as a totality by any one who would obtain a just view of his conservative, rather than radical, attitude on the whole subject.