Dr. George Duffield on the Doctrines of New-School Presbyterians [pp. 655-675]

674 rr. ~eorge ~uffleiJ on the [OcT0~E~
pronounced it without reasons within the Divine mind, or solely
"for the sake of its designed arbitrariness"?
Dr. Duffield claims that Dr. John Witherspoon has done
more than any other man, "in giving form and character, not to
say originating, New-school views of truth." The stupendous
error of this statement was fully exposed in this journal, Oct.
1863, Art. III.
Such is the testimony given by one of the most 6otnpetent and trusted leaders of the New-school church, as to the
doctrines characteristic of that body. It was given with the
utmost care, and under circumstances of the highest responsibility. It speaks for itself, and needs little comment. It shows
most fully the "fair historic sense" of our standards as understood by the New-school body, and that in fundamental doctrine
it is in diametric opposition to their "fair historic sense" among
ourselves and in Christendom. We rejoice to know that the
New-school church contains many honoured exceptions, whose
theology differs slightly, if at all, from our own. We should
most cordially welcome all such to our communion, by that
regular door which is open to all who agree with us. But Dr.
Duffleld has put it beyond all doubt, that the doctrinal scheme
known as "New Divinity," which was the main cause of the
disruption of our church, and the protection of which was a
chief end of the New-school secession, prevails, though we trust
it does not predominate, in that body now. At all events he
shows one "historical sense" of our standards which the basis of
union now proposed requires us to tolerate without let or
hindrance other than by free discussion.
-Nor does the Doctrinal Protest of the New-school in the
Assembly of 1837, readopted by the Auburn Convention, and
reproduced by Dr. Duffield with approval in his Article, prove
anything to the contrary. For first, it is drawn with a sort of
controversial skill and diplomatic adroitness which evade many
of the chief issues without appearing to do so. And secondly,
the question is not merely what they hold, but what they
require as a condition of ministerial and official standing. It
proves nothing therefore either way.
And now the question arises, what means the loud and bitter
clamor uttered and echoed by leading New-school ministers and