The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-10-20

for the fidelity with which he had adhered to the
precise line he knew he intended to pursue in pre-
pairing 1t. The only part which be could think Of
modifying is that to which Dr. Ross has alluded
for in one sense, though only one, the Church has
to do with pOliticS-that is. in these religious and
moral questions; for the Church should follow its
members every where in these particulars in all
the walks of life. He suggested a single verbal
alteratiOn-namely the omission of the word ION
y" where that part Of the Address of 1861.
touching the subject of slavery is referred to; and
expressed the hope that the paper would be unan-
imously adopted
DR.. Broom remarked, in reply, that he had now
no more authority to change the paper than any
one else; it was in the hands of the house. He
wished, however that the bearing Of that word
only should be distinctly understood He had
inserted it with precise object in view, and nten
tionay declared the Address adopted in 1861
1.-THE only uDambiguous, deliberate and authorize
tive exposition OF our views in regard to this mat
tel" 1t is well known that at Charlotte, in 1864
a few sentences occurred in the Narrative of the
state of religion, which he believed are generally
much regretted, because they are liable to be used
to our injury There is 10 doubt a sense in
which the statements Of that paper may be accept
ed as right He thought it would be hard for any
man to show that slavery was not "a divine nstitu-
ton, in the same sense that civil government
the powers that be"-even the despotism Of
Nero, are declared by the Scriptures to be ''or
daned of Cod IL might be also truly said that
il was the duty OF the Church to conserve the in
stution of slavery, if by this it was meant to say
that it was our duty to make the best of what ex-
listed. He happened to know certainly that this
was the meaning OF the writer of that Narrative
and presumed 1t was of those generally in that As
sembly whose attention was not, by the we'll known
circumstances existing, diverted from taking any
notice Of the language used. The word ''con-
serve" as applied to slavery, was not, he believed
intended to assert the duty of the Church to per-
petudte that institution. Dr. Palmer in his ia
nous and admirable sermon on the duty Of the
State in regard to it, when using that word soon
| serve so freely, expressly discaims any such
meaning.
But there are two considerations which it was
important to keep in view while determining this
matter suggested by Mr.. Miller 1t is fact as
here asserted, that the exposition of our views
made in the Address, is the only full and delib-
crate one our Church has ever made. The two or
three sentences in the Narrative adopted at Char
lotte, possess neither of these properties, as has
been abundanty shown in the published letter OF
Rev. DR.. Hoge, The other is that it is the only
one that rs undmbiguouS. The one at Charlotte is
conceded on all hands to admit of double sense.
These are sufficient grounds for declaring it to be
not authoritative" for being neither full nor de
iberate nor ambiguous it is destitute Of every at
tribute to make it so. Why then not make de-
caraton according to the facts? And is not this
the more incumbent when it is considered that, in
the most natural sense of the word, we never have
held that 1t was the duty or mission Of the Church
to conserve the institution OF slavery Certainly
that's the very thing we declared in the Address
that it has no power to do 1t Is right for 1t to
affirm the awfulness Of the relation ITSELF and to
| in nv m
the duties growing out of it, just as it may do both
of these things In respect to civil government.
But who will maintain that the Church can right
fully take control of the question Of the institution
of slauey ITSELF or undertake to conserve it by de-
claring when the State ought to establish or retain
it, or abolish it? In this sense it has no more au
thority over slavery than it has over civil govern
ment-not particle over either.
II this view be correct, then why retain such an
expression so naturally liable to be misunderstood
and used to our injury? He would not on the one
hand be sensitive to camor, nor would he, on the
other, needessly offend against either the genera
ton of the righteous or of the wicked Is it not
then the right course to retain this word "ony,
and thereby relieve our Church quietly, but efec
tually, from seeming to adopt sentiment which
in the most natural meaning Of the words, it never
held, and which, in fact, it positively repudiates
Rec Mr., Miller thought there we're many wht
ulQ UOU T6gdTu tllG duOpleu III OUdTlOJt(
as hastily prepared document, and who do no
agree in DR.. Hoges explanation He moved tina
the word only be changed to formal, for h'
thought all the papers of the Assembly ought t
be both authoritative and deliberate. In grea
revolutions we are liable to make concessions which
are inexpedient and unwise. He did not want th
imputatiOn charged upon our Church lie under
stood DR.. Brown to say that there was a sense il
which the expression used was true--he, MIR. Mil
oll lol
the paper as interpreted By the following ant
other sentences and consistent with other deliver
ances. though unfortunate, because capable also O
an offensive and political sense, and therefore he
was opposed to such retraction, unexplained, al
was implied in this word "oah.'
DR.. Broom asked in rejoinder, that the attention
of the Assembly should be held to this point--no
whether there was a sense in which the expression
referred to was true nor whether that was the IN
tended sense of the paper; but that there was also
a sense, as admitted by Mr. Miller, in which il
was capable of political and offensive meaning
that this as he Dr. B. believed, was its most
natural Interpretation, and under that meaning ii
committed US to position which this body, and
the Church we represent, do not accept
ReU. Dr. Smythe thought the Assembly owed
it to itself, and to the Church. to revise its min
uteS, and correct anything hasty, or equvoca in
its deliverances. and likely to do it injury. He
| CHUugIlt inc ICuudIhS VI III llOSS anu WI.
showed the importance of retaining that word
only. There was wide difference between Mar,
rative where no one looks for doctrina discussions
and formal deliberate deliverance, like the one
at Augusta, or the document before us. 1t was
important to harmonise our previous declarations.
We should show that, in the phrase referred to-
we did not intend the meaning put upon it, and
be able to refer to an authoritative exposition OF
our views The term conserve does give ground
for misrepresentation of our views, and we ought to
remove it we should use language which will -
If the Apostles did not think it beneath them to
vindicate their character when assailed it was not
beneath the dignity of this Assembly to set itself
before the Church and the world in its true light,
and on such an important subject, remove, as far
as possible, what is liable to misrepresentation, and
then let men revile and SANDER if they will.
The letter was then adopted unanimously with
the exception of dissent which the Rev. DR..
Ross entered from certain expressions in that part
touching the relation of the Church to civil gov
eminent. With all the other parts he heartily
agreed.
"a.