The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1857-12-12
From the (New schOol) Presbyterian Witness,
The Question of Re- Union.

There is very great and solemn respon-
sibility in the decision of this question.
When viewed in the proper light, it is a
question which involves the glory of God
and the prosperity of his kingdom on earth.
We can not innocently crafty party ambi-
ton or party prejudice when interests of
such Importance are involved. To arrive
at safe decision, we must take into ac-
count the questions-WW God be glorfed?
wiH his kingdom be strengthened and crteld-
ed? Now God is glorifed, so far as human
agency can glorify him, in the reflection of
the divine principles of the gospel in our
lives and conduct. His kingdom is strength
ened by the harmony and brotherly love of
his disciples, which makes them one as our
Saviour prayed that they might be one.
There is in genuine, vital, christianity a
mighty element of union. Our Saviour made
it very prominent in his teachings, and the
Apostles sharply rebuked all departures
from it. The idea of separation, or divi-
sion, in the body of Christ's disciples does
not appear in the New Testament as thing
to be tolerated. Judging from St. Paul's
cutting sarcasm to the Corinthiano we would
say il was not tolerated. "Now this | say,
that every one of you saith, am of Paul;
and of Apollos; aud l of Cephas, and |
of Christ Is Christ divided? Was Paul
crucifed for you? or were you baptised in
the name of Paul?" "There is one body"
Why? Because, there is one spirit-there
is one calling-there is one Lord, one faith,
one baptism-one God and Father of all.
This is the New Testament doctrine on
Christian union.
The division of the people of God into
denominations, as they now stand, is an
evil for which we are not accountable. But
the responsibility of new division, or the
healing of an old schism, is upon us now.
Is there necessity for us to separate our
selves from the great body to which we
most assimilate2 We think not. There is
very great family likeness between our
selves and the Old School, so much so, that
no doubt, if person were blindfolded, and
carried to the churches throughout the
length and breadth of the land, and heard
the ministers preach indiseriminately, he
would be unable to tell to what school they
belonged. 1t is an effort to make dis
tinction without any real difference when it
is affirmed that the two schools differ in
theology. For learning, piety, zeal, sound
theology, and correct exposition of Bible
truth, the ministry of the Old School church
stand without a rival in our country. Be-
ginning at New York City, with DR.. Spring
at the head, and taking the Atlantic Slope
round to New Orleans, and ending in Cali
fornia with DR.. Scott, we have presented
an array of talent and devotion to the cause
of God, which is unsurpassed in any part
of the world. There is a stability and
sound conservatism in the ministry of this
region which are sure pledge against error
of doctrine or rash procedure in polity.
know that every one who took part in
the division of '37 will join issue with me
on this point. But pause and reflect. What
part has suffered most evil from that event?
Extreme cases require extreme measures.
Has not the act of 81, though unconStitu-
tional, proved to be conservative? The
Old School have prospered and grown most
rapidly, while we have fingered lin the
South with only a name to live for twenty
wears, and are now cast out with contempt
by our Constitutional loving brethren. Our
experience should compel us to acknowledge
wise foresight in those who rid them
selves, twenty years ago, of that party,
which last spring, at Cleveland, brought
us to the block, without benefit of clergy.
We have gained nothing, but lost all and
are whipped severely. The Old School
have lost nothing and gained all. 1t GER
tainly becomes us to weigh this matter IN
the light of common sense.
/ But it is not necessary to justify the act
of 81. There is nothing human thatis per-
feet. Because they erred in that act, we
being Judges, does not cut them off from all
confidence. Every man and body of men
err, and it is Christian to exercise large
charity.
1t is not sufficient consideration to justi-
fly our separate permanent organization,
that we will be free from the agitation OF
the slavery question. The Old School have
been free from that for the last ten years
The great majority of their men occupy the
same ground on that subject which we oc-
cupy. There may, at some future day, be
division in the Old School, but the present
indication is that the division will be with
out agitation. The northwest may 90 off
For the Assembly will not allow the subject
to come before that body. What more cal
we ask? We wish no article adopted il
our creed forbidding the discussion of the
slavery question. We might with as mucf
propriety adopt an article saying, that the
Assembly shall not discuss the question O.
the tariff, or the question Of the right O
suffrage to foreigners. The common sense
of all reasonable men teaches that it is ;
question with which the Assembly has NJ
business. A master, a member of the
church, may treat his servant cruelty an(
oppress him-the church session ought tt
discipline that master, for cruelty is grea
sin. So member of the church may ac
very dishonesty in ~connection with th'
tariff, the session ought to discipline him
for dishonesty is sin.
But enough of this. The New Schoo
South ought to unite with the Old School
because it will strengthen the church an
honor God by developing the peaceful prin
, ciples of the gospel we profess. As Me-
School we have no distinct doctrine that W
can present as reason why aperson shOul