The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-02-17

mittee at Richmond of this work as one of
its issues. We do not believe the Church
authorised or that she expects it to issue
publications representing the vaeoOs of any
party" Can any fair, competent judge of
language deny that the writer here intends
to charge the Committee with having actually
done this? Will it be suggested that all he
means to allege is that the Catechism does
contain, not the teaching of our standards,
but the views of party, and that the Com,
mittee, in issuing it, has IN point Of fact and
so far forth identified itself with party
but that the affirmation goes no further, that
it does not impute any thing wrong in their
intentions-that it ascribes to it only an err
ror of Judgment? 1t would have been ex.
ceedingly gratifying to be able to understand
the writer in this sense, which would have
been the one readily taken from the RevieV,
had not subsequent expressions rendered it
impossible. For, after few sentences about
what the Church expects of the Committee
about partisan views" &c., that "there
will always be parties &c., the writer adds
=" But what we are now insisting upon, is
that it is inadmissible for our Committee of
Publication to lend itself to party purposes.
There is hardly phrase whose meaning is
more definitely fixed than that of the words
we have itaicised One may lend his help
to what you think wrong, you may condemn
him for it, but be ready at the same time to
say he meant well, it was only an error of
judgment. But the moment you speak of
him as a man who can "lend himself to
reprehensible course, it is every where un-
derstood that you pass beyond the idea of
mere error of judgment, and mean to impute
to him sOant of right principle. It's mean
ing, as thus understood, in the present in
stance, is confirmed by what follows in the
next sentence, in which the Committee is re-
presented as having "taken upon itseL'' to
publish what the writer condemns-a phrase
of well known import in such connexion.
Now we take it upon Ourself to say that
the Committee of Publication is composed
of gentlemen who do not lend themselves"
either in their personal or official relations
to "the vissOs Of any party" 1t is necessa-
ry to say further that while we do not un-
dertake to represent the Committee in any
thing here said, yet we have heard no person
whatever speak of the imputation contained
in the expression referred to, who did not
say it was highly offensive. Nor is the fact
that this imputation is not absolutely ex.
pressed but is only Enthusiastically land skill
fully insinuated, any mitigation of its objec-
tionable character, but the reverse. 1t is
known that there have been and still are
certain brethren suppose for illustration one
or more of them should live in Columbia
whose views on certain questions connected
with the great work of Sustentation, have
differed widely froIn1eRe embodied in the
; ;5:::::; !; !! 1 !! |!
matter involving - initial principles of
Presbyterianism. WHIT would be thought
and said, should one or more holding some
of these wayside notions, charge that excel
lent Committee, with its beloved Secretary,
not only as having erred in judgment, but
as lending itself to party views and party
measures in the Church? Representations of
this kind are commonly hard to bear from su-
periors; among equals they are not to be en-
dured; however, had they affected individuals
merely, there are public considerations on &C
count of which it might have been duty to
let them pass in silence. But when it is
borne in mind that the whole tendency of that
article in the ReviesO was to disparage one of
our public Committees, and by Extensively re-
presenting it as lending itself to partizan
views, to bring it into contempt with the
Church, the case is entirely altered. 1t was
then one in which it became public duty to
gre place By Subsection, no not for an hour"
We cannot express the surprise with which
the article, especially the closing part, was
read, and coming as it did, from a source
we have so much respected and honorcd.-
Nor is that surprise diminished by another
fact which gives us real concern, that though
the obnoxious expressions were distinctly
pointed out in the Central Presbyterian, the
Southern Presbyterian makes no allusion to
this. but states, after calm reflection, that it
fully approves of all the Review has said.
Other matters involving the very remark
able opinions of the Southern Presbyterian
upon questions of Church Government, will
be next brought under review.
Last Thursday of February last Cen
eral Assembly adopted the following resolution:
"Resolved, That on the day of prayer for
schools and colleges our ministers be requested to
point out to the people, in an appropriate sermon,
the Importance of dedicating their sons to the Cos
pel ministry, and urge them to renewed efforts to
provide the means for sustaining pious young men
during their literary and theological studies.
The day referred to has, by the action of the
proceeding Assembly and by an observance of long
standing, been the 4th Thursday February, which
this year comes on the 25th inst. The concert of
prayer among various evangelical churches in our
land has been owned of God as means of great
good and has so repeatedly been followed by an i'm
MI. Il.