The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-03-24
IRENICUM.

Southern Presbyterian Revieao, concerning DIR.
Smyth's Catechism and the Committee of Publ
cation. There were in that article certain express
sions which were understood to charge the Com
unmistakab easnuation, if not more
directy-with nothing than official corruption.
1t was so regarded by eTry member Of that Com
mittee 1t was so regarded extensively, II not |
by others-and very naturally, for such |
was the meaning which the language used seemed
decidedly to convey 1t is needless to spend words
in showing that no man can use that kind OF Ian
guage concerning his brethren without being made
to feel some of the inconvenience OF allowing such
incontinence to his pen. If such was not the auth
ors meauing-if, however offensive the terms,
they were after all only an unhappy selection to
express his ideas, it We but reasonable to suppose
he would hasten to correct the mistake the mo-
ment it should be brought to his attention. Moth
ing of the kind, however, has appeared, unless
possibly in the following sentence in the Southern
Presbyterian of the 18th, now before US:
''We did rot wish to say more on the subject,
because we are confident that the Committee OF
Publication cannot ints9d 10 insist upon right TO
publish what is inconsistent with our standards,
nor do we believe that it bas any desire to DO SO.
dramatically considered this means that the
Southern Presbyterian does not believe the Com
mittee desire or intend to insist upon right to
publish what is inconsistent with our standards.
But inasmuch as no body ever heard Of the Com
mittee claiming much less Insisting upon any such
right, this construction would leave the sentence
under the calamity of being void Of all good sense.
And inasmuch as this article of our contemporary
expresses, several times, benevolent concern
for the intelligence of our people as well as for
that of the Central Presbyterian, it is only cour-
teous to express the hope that it did not wilfuly
construct sentence of utter inanity. Therefore
we take it-charitaby considered, instead of gram
matically-to mean that the Committee desired to
do what was right, and consequently that it has
not been guilty of representing a party in the
Church, so as to Send itself to party purposes,
&C., &c.
If this construction is admissible-or if it be the
one desired by the Southern Presbyterian, as the
best it can do and if that journal is understood as
speaking for the Reuieo, then are we quite willing
to accept the apology at its full value, having high
poetic authority at least for thinking that
"He who does the best his circumstance allows
Does well, acts nobly-angels could no more"
And as to the somewhat late hour Of its coming,
just let that be put down as so many other good
Presbyterian brethren have to be, on our Church
records" Excused for tardneSS"
If in this discussion we have occasionally used
weapons of defence somewhat sharply set on edge,
the reader will readily call to mind how ample was
the invitation and incentive from those employed
in the assault. We assure our assailant there has
been no intention to pass step beyond the point
of lawful dialectics in the present case uuavoida-
bly, tempered to some keenness by the very peculiar
temper of his own. In fact, while necessarily feel
ing aggrieved we are in no bad humor at all,
though entertaining the deliberate opinion that
somebody among the excellent association Of
gentlemen" connected with the Revie1o, has in this
matter 'erred and strayed from the right way like
lost sheep--doing the things he ought not
to have done, and leaving undone the things which
he ought to have done" But if King David saw
an lend of all perfection ia his day, we who are
not better than were our fathers, should not be
ahenated or even much put out from not finding
it in one another in our time. In fact, if little
indulgence may be granted, we will venture an an
ecdote which may serve to relax-the somewhat
grim visage under which this discussion has ap-
peared, as well as to express exactly the state of
our own feelings towards somebody-whoever it
was that wrote or fathers that unhandsome article
in the Reuieo We heard it told many years ago
in the Synod of Virginia, Injecting at the time in
Lewisburg, Greenbrier county, Va, and with in
imitabe effect by the present Professor of Theolo
gy in our Theological Seminary in Columbia. To
reproduce it fully on paper is impossible, but the
substance was this:
A certain young fellow brought up in some of
the mountain wilds of the said county of Green
brier had fallen desperately in love with one of Its
maidens-a circumstance by no means peculiar to
that gallant people. He was good-looking-
was "dreadM homely "-as our Scotch-Irish
folks sometimes say. He was poor-she was rich.
He was extremely bashful, and neither of them
knew much, by theory or practise, of the magic
arts of courtship However, after many visits
and many Intellectual motions towards making
beginning he contrved it after the following fash
ion: sally" said he, Sally,-I do-love-
you-for-tor all" ''For all lohat, John2" she
answered, with no small emphasis, as may be sup
posed, on that interrogative pronoun, "aohat?"
John was deeply embarrassed, but for good
while could advance no farther, In reply, than to
get out pretty much the same Stammering declara-
ton about the state, aud extent, and limitation of
his affections, as at first given, viz: that he loved
her '.tor ALL At length, after tedious process
n IL Al
sisting, as her right was, Now, do say john
for all aohat?" he was enabled to tell at last all
that was in his heart, by saying" Well, Sally
do love you-Jfor all yOW are so ugyi"
Whether the matter ended tragicaly is not re-
membered; our impression is that notwithstand.
ing the little ugly unpleasantness, it ended
tremendously, as all such things ought, whether
among young men and maidens, or among the
more grave and reverend seigniors Under
this view, them and with the foregoing declaration
on our part some remarks are necessary in regard
TO DR.. Smyth S communication, and things connect
ed Herewith.
The ReUielC, we believe, makes objection to
about sixteen answers to questions in the Cate
chism, DIR. Smyth expresses a willingness to have
three of these changed One is at questions 1876,
and l46, so as to make the answers in reference to
the ordination of elders and deacons conform to
each other. This was manifestly mere inadver.
tence in the book-with no design on the part of
the author or of the Committee 1t is not a mat
ter of much Importance, as it stands in the book,
but as we intimated from the first notice of it, and
as Dr. Smyth agrees, it will certainly be better to
have the ordination of both elders and deacons de-
scribed under the same terms.
Another is at question l22, where it is said that
the ruling elder is. appointed to assist the pas
tor, who is the teaching elder in the government
L