The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-02-17
THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN AND
THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.

The Central Presbyterian of the 9th, 18th,
and Goth of January, contained editorial arti-
eles in reply to the extraordinary criticisms of
the Southern Presbyterian Reuiea0 upon the
Committee of Publication and the Ecclesias-
teal Catechism of DIR. Smyth. We are not
surprised that the Southern Presbyterian
newspaper should think it necessary to come
to the defense of the SoutheYW Presbyterian
RevieaO, as it has done at considerable length
in its issue of the 4th inst Nor have we
any objection, if it thinks that review quite
right in the matters we controverted, that it
nsSSagA Akam&sAntly extend to its near neigh
& zEZ - and comfort" in its power.
y "A friend in need, is friend indeed" In
fact nothing could be more natural, consid-
ering the intimate relations between the two
periodicals, much closer than that of neigh.
bors, as we learn from the following state
ment in the Southern Presbyterian, in which
that paper at the same time expresses in
general terms, las more in particular after
wards, its approval of what the review ut
tiers about the Catechism and the Committee
of Publication. 1t says:
"In question which affects the interests of
the Church, we cannot allow our close eOnnexion
with the ReCie1o as its proprietor and one of its
corps of editors, to prevent our speaking freely OF
whatever we may find in its pages, whether to APP
prove or condemn. In the present instance, we
G,l Of kba Of ha 'bo
tone of its criticism is respectful and temperate;
and it calmly points out what it regards as the diff
ferences between the teachings of the Form of
Government and DR.. Smyth' Cateehism."
1t is obvious to remark that, however I'M
questionable the honest intentions of the
Editor of the newspaper when called to sit
in judgment upon the RevieaO-Of which he
is not only sole proprietor, but also zone of
its corps of Editors the probability of his
impartiaity is by no means so apparent.
All the experience of the world has been,
that for any man to be law-maker and judge
at the same time; to pass under review in
one capacity what he himself has done in
another, and yet to keep his mind and heart
unsweryed by partiality, is more than can
be expected of human nature in its best es-
tate. The church dignitary who tried to
turn away the edge of reproof for his pro-
family, by pleading that he only swOre as a
a Bishop, not as a man, made false distinc-
ton, and was rightly answered in the anec-
dote so well known that it need not be re-
p5ated. To expect an impartial judgment
from our cotemporary in this case, is to ex-
pect an impOssibiity. Certainly we can
make no such claim in our own behalf
Having expressed a decided opinion upon
DR.. Smyths Catechism in the Committee,
we do not pretend to do more, as Editor of
the Central Presbyterian, than to defend
that judgment against adverse criticism.
Accepting the Southern Presbyterian paper,
therefore, not as an impartial judge in the
case, but as the close ally Of the Southern
Presbyterian Rsvie10, and its natural advO-
cate in this discussion, where the parties
are, if not almost identical, yet so nearly
akin, that
Each for the other
Would die for his brother
we are willing to submit the case, upon ar
gument, to the Judgment of the Church.
And with these things promised, we proceed
to the true issues between us. What are the
allegations made by the Rsvisoo and endorsed
by the paper2
The first point we shall refer to is the Sc
rious imputation which the ReView has Wis