Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

July 7, 1909. In this Assembly Assemblies of 1904 ar that the systems of Cumberland Confess same." The asserti* identity in the con Churches is an asse known facts. This ; theory that by viitue 1 ern Church receded fr This was what the Ci In the supplements Assembly sitting in D was taken that the N of its Confession the tion, definite atonem have no less authority terian," the official c report "set forth tl C 1 t I ?,i ^umuerianu commiti report, and that, "af tion," the Cumberland tion and recommend, speeches delivered bj berland union commi that they were all i: doctrinal position report. Technically s was not formally adoj ordered to be spread t the deliverance in q declares that the ic removal of ground foi Faith was in any sen* to the union leaders recedinc from its hicti O doctrines mentioned i But, as asserted substantial identity o two Confessions is m It is a historic fact, a the systems of doctrii always been regarded poles. Dr. Roberts' doctrinal content of which he, as well as ; side by side with the of 1883. He knows tl tive Calvinism, and th and meaning. But let the point, for he cert gOod witness. In a Presbyterian Ministe Ohio, in 1889, on the Confession of "Faith,' point of the revision ( "Jtinter inio length; not, for the limits of s a source of danger t history of a movemen .which began in a neig ment of this century, value is it to rememb terians, when they an ___ THE PRESBYTERL deliverance the action of the id 1906 was re-affirmed declaring doctr?ut of the Northern and .ions were "substantially the on that there was substantial fessional systems of the two rtion which is contradicted by issertion is true only upon the of the revision of 1903 the Northom its historic doctrinal position, imberland union leaders claimed. u report to the Cumberland alias, Texas, in 1904, the position iorthern Church had revised out .doctrines of unconditional decent and efficacious grace. We r than "The Cumberland Presby>rgan of that Church, that this he grounds" upon which the :ee acted in signing the joint ter equally thorough considerad "Assembly approved the position of its committee." The r the members of the Cumttee in that Assembly show n thorough accord with the taken in the supplemental peaking, the supplemental report ted by the Assembly, but it was jpon the minutes. And when, in [uestion, the Denver Assembly >03 revision accomplished "the asserting that the Confession of se fatalistic," it did so, according in the Cumberland Church, by oric position upon the distinctive in the supplemental report, above, this declaration of the f the systems of doctrine of the. lade in the face of known facts. i fact not open to question, that ic of these two Confessions have as diametrically opposite as the statement, quoted above, of the the Presbyterian system, is one ill others, knows can not be laid revised Cumberland Confession fat the former represents distinclat the latter is Arminian in tone : Dr. Roberts himself speak upon ainly ought to be regarded as a paper which he read before the ?rc' Aeeru>iat!nn r\( Pincinnat! subject of the "Revision of the ' in speaking to the particular }f the third chapter, he said: y argument at this point I can tpace forbid. It is sufficient that >e pointed out by recalling the t for the revision of Chapter III, hboring Synod at the commenceOf present decided interest and er that the Cumberland Presbylended the Westminster Confes ^ OF THE SOUTH. sion in 1829, modified Sections 1 and eliminated the remaining si curious repetition of history to fi tuted in Chapter X, Section 3, 'elect' the word 'all' before 'infant government the Cumberlands ar doctrine they are not. The departure toward semi-Arminianis the modification of Chapter III, < the doctrine of pretention, and proposed by some persons in f. _ _ ? - 4 - comessionai revision, to amend t some extent, in the very way in w by a now distinctly Arminian revision led inevitably to Armini light of past history, objectors to its essential doctrine of reprobatio proof thrown upon tl.em to show us, through the elimination of ce will not result in an attempt to Church which shall be 'Prcsbyt Calvinistic.' An old proverb is ap proof of the pudding is in the eati Since the foreiroinp- ntteranr Q o ~ opinion of the Cumberland Chui tion, the Confession of that Chui tered in the slightest particular, more: The men of that Church wl position, official and otherwise, state the doctrinal position of thei union negotiations, declared with which language could command changed in the least degree. Anc the face of the above elaborate and ly studied utterance, in 1889, dec] associates on the Union Committ of doctrine of the two Confession ment as to warrant the union ol Why did the Denver Assembl; ance? Was it with a view tQ infli ions ot tne civil courts i It seems struction. The opening paragrap eral Assembly, in view of legal c ing Church property in Tenness lowing declaration." The Tenn that the Cumberland Church h; with a Church of an opposite fai Denver Assembly which says in ! mistaken; the Cumberlands have i holding a creed which has histo the Cumberland Church. Hence change of faith upon the part of entering into this union." Does n question authorize this interprei hope this construction is not auth erance, but it seems to be warn situation in Tennessee (since then 1.1 it !i., J i ? v.?jihhjiiis me rcunueu v^nurcn. pudding is in the eating" undoub seems to have had a Calvinistic fl; in 1909, by reason of a very critic ing church property in Tennesset opposite character seems to have 1 pudding. 9 and 2 of Chapter III x. It is likewise a nd that they substiinstead of the word :s.' Presbyterians in e, but Calvinists in beginning of their >m was a demand for sspecially as regards it is now seriously our midst favoring he same chapter, to hich it was amended body. Cumberland anism. And, in the Chapter III and to n have the burden of that its revision by rtain of its sections, make our Church a erian without being plicable here: 'The Ilg.'" e of Dr. Roberts' rch's doctrinal posi ch has not been alAnd what is even 10 by reason of their were competent to ir Church during the i all the emphasis , that it had not I yet Dr. Roberts, in , evidently thoroughlares, along with his ee, that the systems s are in such agree[ the Churches! y issue this deliverlencing future decisto bear such a conh says: "The Genomplications involvee, adopted the folesse court declared id gone into union th. Now comes the substance: "You are inited with a Church rically distinguished , there has been no the Cumberlands in ot the deliverance in tation? I sincerely orized by this delivmted by the actual in Missouri), which "The proof of the tedly. The pudding avoring in 1904; but al situation "involva flavoring of an jeen imparted to the