The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-11-11

Most brethren were more afraid OF that thdu
OF division itself, and he was free to say for
himself that he bad not as yet heard any men
toned which satisfied his mind. He therefore
suggested one tha- had occurred to him. which
was to throw the Presbyteries OF Patapsco,
RappahannOck (about to be united into one
the CheSapeake,) Winchester, Greenbrer
and Lexington into one Then the PreSby
teries OF East Hanover, West Hanover, Roam
Oke, Montgomery, and Abingdon would be
thrown into the other This would leave large
cities as centres for each, would make the
principal points easy Of access, and would
make In all respects about as equal division
as could be effected
Rec. Mr.. Mccoy Of Louisa county express
ed himself as earnestly opposed TO division
This was not question Of lines. 1t was the
offspring OF Young America, sometimes
called reform, or 1.-The civilization of the
18th century. He maintained that the ex-
penses of attending divided Synod would be
the same-that no good could come in any
shape from such measure, and that brethren
did not stay away from the meetings so much
because OF the expenses as for some carnal
reason.
Rec Wan. " WILSON,, of Smythe county,
remarked that mis- difficulty was not as to the
deSirableneSS OF division; but as to the mode
of etfecting it. SHOW me the lines: it de-
ponds upon that. Here was question in
which We must not allow feelings to control us.
His opinion was that if division into three
Synods, instead of TWO, were effected, 1t would
throw the territory of each into an acceptable
aud accessible shape, and would give to each
body about sixty ministers and an equal divl-
sion of churches.
Rec. Dr. SH,ith said it was true that he did
not present his projet for division on motion
Of the people That was not our mode Of do
ing such things A division Of the Synod was
eminently matter for the Synod itself to de-
eide, made up, as it was, Of ministers and ell
ders representing all the churches. This was
question which had been moved long time
back, but the immediate reason operating up
on HIM to introduce 1t now, was conversation
he had recently held with the senior Professor
in Union Theological Seminary, Rev. Samuel
b. Wilson, ID. d. DIR, Wilson had given this
subject a very iull and calm examination, and
had come to the conclusion that the best ar
rangement which could be made was divi-
sion into three Synods, as follows: |. PatapScO,
Rappahannock (now Chesapeake,l East Han
over, w. Hanover 2. Winchester, Lexington,
Greenbrier g. Roanoke, Montgomery, Abing-
don. This gave as convenient territory as could
ever be secured, and what was remarkable,
gave exactly sixty-three ministers to each Syn
cd, with very equal division of churches,
each large enough to answer fully all the pur
poses for which a Synod was designed.
After brief statement of his reasons for
favoring division, DR.. Smith said in cOnclu-
sion, that as there never had been decision
of this body to which he did not bow submis
sively so now he would cheerfuly await its
Judgment on this important matter. lie only
asked for it fair consideration. Those who
seemed most impatient about its introduction,
must be satisfied already that there were en-
tirely too many in favor of some measure Of
the kind, to render it wise to give so grave
question a summary go-by.
Rec. lLr. Richardson explained his remark
about not liking the incipiency of this move
ment. He asked where did the members first
hear of it? He knew that it was in cOntem
plation months ago to bring the matter up at
this time, and expected that attention would
have been called to it in the religious newspa-
pers But the 6rst-public intimation of it was
an editorial article in the Central Presbyterian
advocating division, on the very eve Of the
meeting here. He did not mean to convey the
idea of any intentional unfairneSs, but was
surprised that it should have come up in that
way, and at that late hour. 1t ought to have
come through the Presbyteries,
THE Editor of the Central Presbyterian viii
take the occasion to say here what he omitted
to state as fully as was desired IN his remarks
before the SynOd-having many points to no
iice, and not wishing to consume too much time.
Healso had heard at different times, and good
while before the meeting of the Synod, that this
subject would probably be brought up, and sup.
posed it probable some one would begin to stir
it in the newspapers. About two weeks before
the Synod met, he heard, Enormously it seems)
that action had been taken by one OF the Pres
byteries, with a view to bringing the question to
the attention of that body. He then thought it
proper to publish the remarks found in the Gen.
trail Presbyterian of October 14th-just one week
before the meeting of the Synod, apprising its
members in the first sentence, that the question
would probably be considered. No apology is
made for presenting the brief outline of the
views entertained by the writer in favor of d.
vision. The subject was by no means a novel
one, and the members of the Synod were men
quite unlikely 70 be prematurely swayed by an
influence of this kind. The subject was one
upon which it was proper for any member of the
Synod to be heard at almost any time. The
writer of the article referred to believed that If
anything at all was said. there was no reason
why he should not freely speak his mind. And
if any brethren are disposed to complain that
by this article an unfair advantage was taken,
and that the question was too suddenly sprung
upon them in the Synod, they will kindly in
dulge him in giving them this little secret. viz;
that with the exception of three four sentences
and few verbal changes, this very same article
was published last ear in the editorial columns
of the Central Presbyterian, just one week be-
fore the meeting of the synod in Char estOwn.
Pythagoras used to say that his maxims remained
frozen in the minds Of his disciples for twenty
five years, at the end OF which time they began
to thaw. Our little affair seems to have melted
sooner. Last year it fell ike trost-this year
like fire. But in truth it was neither anything
special in that piece IN the newspaper, nor any
thing in the time of its appearance; it was be-
cause this subject has been working its own way
into the minds of many brethren. We think
our brethren Of "the other branch" on this
question must be now aware of this