III.
DOES THE CONFESSION NEED REVISION?[1]
I have read with great interest the criticisms upon the paper which was presented by me to the Presbytery of New Brunswick, with which Dr. Van Dyke has honored me in the Herald and Presbyter of July 31. If I correctly understand the drift of Dr. Van Dyke's remarks, he argues that revision of the Confession is necessary, and he is willing to rest this alleged necessity on three criticisms of the Confession, which he states. It does not seem proper for me to pass these suggestions by without remark, and the less so, that the three points which Dr. Van Dyke has singled out are those which have been most frequently dwelt upon by those who advocate revision. We may hope, then, that if these do not prove adequate reasons for undertaking the task, it may be admitted that there is little serious call for it in the churches.
Probably, however, before entering into a discussion of these test criticisms, I ought to say a word in general about the New Brunswick paper, which has furnished occasion for Dr. Van Dyke's article. Let this be as brief as possible. That paper was intended to bring together what is, in essence, a threefold argument against the necessity of revision—an argument which, if founded on facts, ought
- ↑ Printed in the Herald and Presbyter for August 21, August 28, and September 4, 1889, in reply to an article by Rev. Dr. Henry J. Van Dyke in criticism of the paper adopted by the Presbytery of New Brunswick, for which see above, pages 39–41.
