The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-02-24
THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN AND
THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.


troduced by the Southern Presbyterian, notice
of one or two particulars may be allowed.
Our cotempOrary, referring TO the adJectiveS
and nouns which we used in expressing our estl
mate of the criticism in the Rerieao, says" Now,
our readers do not need to be told that we do not
know how to reply to criticisms interspersed with
language of this kind least of all could we char
acterse such expressions coming, as they do, from
source we have so highly esteemed and honored
Let US see Whoever will turn to the next ar,
tcle of the PRESBYTERIAN ReUieo after the one crit
icising the Committee of Publication, will find
another criticising book published by one of the
best and most honored Presbyterian ministers OF
this country, one whose long labors in the South,
and Though not now in our communion) whose
warm sympathy for our people have greatly en-
deared him to them. OF this book. so full OF
piety and important truth Ia work which in its
first edition and under another name, was sent
through the blockade and was widely circulated 10
our army the ReUieao uses such language as the
following: "A thoroughly SlipShod book: "a
set of writers are practising upon the reawakened
and childlke desire, which the gracious Father
has breathed into his people: the spreading
out and spinning out of what he was to ~
"diluton of little sense in many words - could
language be more bald, diSjointed, jejune? p" the
simple truth this book is not the fruit of conscen
tious labor =" 1t Pushes the cheek with mortified
tion that one who ought to be champion, should
furnish food for derison to the adversaries If we
have spoken strongly, it is due to the pain we feel
in seeing great opportunities come to nought.
There is no necessity for hunting after other ex
ampes 1t must be apparent that whatever scru
Piles of taste or conscience the Southern PeS6yte-
riaa may feel about replying to Criticisms inter
spersed with language of this kind, the Southern
Presbyterian ReUieao which, as to this matter,
seems to be one and the Same) has none whatever
about using them.
The Central Presbyterian did characterize the
article of the ReUieao as not criticism, but as
"captious condemnation, employing sundry terms
of which the Southern Presbyterian has made a
full list, and to which it is welcome either for pub
lie or private consideration, We used these terms
reluctantly, but submit whether, in view Of the
singular and extraordinary kind of arguments ad
duced by the ReUiea0 against the Catechism, as
well as the extraordinary character OF the impu-
tation, it did not hesitate to lay upon the Commit
tee of Publication they were altogether undeserved
Our contemporary gives place to some rather en-
ergetic expressions in regard to what it calls our
threat against the Reuiel0. Now, to say the
most of it, we certainly no more threatened the
ReUieto than the Revie,o threatened the Committee
1t calls "the marked attention of the Church to
the matter, for which it had severely censured
the Committee, and then adds-"The question
calls for settlement, 1ohether the Church approves
or disapproues the course ,ohich hare inpugned
This is certainly decided language, not from a
Church court whose right to demand "a settle
ment" is undoubted, but from voluntary asso
citation of gentlemen. Perhaps, however, we
fail to recognize the full importance to be attached
to the authority of the ReUie,o, in a case of this
kind, since the Southern Presbyterian informs us,
1.-THE italics are ours that it will continue to be
as it has long been, The representative of our
| Chauch's vteacs, &C. Truly that little word
the, though like the tongue only st little mem
Der, yet sometimes 'boasteth great things
Now. let us understand one another We meant
tone, and the exceedingly unreasonable, even friv
olous character of the objections urged against the
Catechism, winding up with an offensive imputa
ton already referred to, and an intimaton, not at
all obscure, of an arraignment before the Gene
raj Assembly which presents in one body the
Church, we did not think it entirely out of place,
under such extraordinary aggressons upon the
feelings of others, to intimate that there was a
possible alternative in the matter that while the
assault of the Rerie,o might iujure the standing
and usefulness of the Committee, there might at
the same time arise question as to the usefulness
of a periodical that allowed itself such style
of procedure. The circumstances of the case
Justify us in saying-wbat the ReUie,o knows per-
fectly we-that it has had no frmer friend than in
the person who is here compelled to take issue
with it, and none who, according to his ability,
has done more to promote its circulation. But he
does not hesitate to repeat, not as threat but as
declaration of opinion, and called for under the
assumption of that periodical in its style of treat
ment towards brethren in the Church who have
done nothing whatever to merit it, that not many
more articles of such reckless criticism will be
needed to make the most sober-minded people in
the Church begin to calculate the value of its con
tinuance 1t may be as we'll to understand this
now as at any other time. 1t is a new style of
dealing 10Th Their brethren, which has been intro
duced, and we do not think our Church will regard
it with favor.
Less space is left than was intended to discuss
questions of Church-law and government intro
duced by the Southern Presbyterian. But, while
a great deal might be said, happily great deal is
not necessary; their statement is almost their com
pete answer among those who have had oppor
tunity to examine the points here mentioned. 1t
cites three points of objection made by the Revieo,
but as it does not, in regard to two of them, enter
into an argument, we are willing that all who have
read what has been said on both sides should Judge
1t may be proper at another time to show by CO.
pous citations, that the language Of the Catechism
so much objected to, in which the ruling elder is
spoken of as an assistant to the pastor, admit
ting at the same time his equality as a ruler, is
in accordance with the standards of Presbyterian
ism and its most approved writer's, since the Re-
| formation.
In regard to one of the points mentioned by the
Southern Presbyterian, it makes some statements
and remarks which claim a reply; we refer to
what is said about "the right Of ruling elders to
Ian on hands IN the ordination of minister's.
After citing what is said on this point in the
Form of Government" and then in DR.. Smyth' s
Catechisn,, we have the following extraordinary
statement:
This is question which has long been dis
cussed in our church courts; and though it is true
that the General Assembly of 1914 decided in ac-
cordance with the view expressed in this Cate
| L.. a+ Gonnral hlr OF Mnrn,a