The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-03-30
I'D Al g9ct exsse'
B mereIes screws DsiON
For The CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
THE REVISED BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER
AND DE-. ROBINSON


AND Dr. ROBINSON
Mr.. Editor,-In the Central of March
9th. is published letter from DR.. Stuart
Robinson, which | read with some interest
and care, expecting to find something from
his vigorous pen that would throw light upon
the discussions now going on in the South
ern Presbyterian Church. In this | confess
to no little disappointment. So far as can
gather from this letter of three columns, its
chief purpose was to let the Church know
that Dr. R. approves Of the Revised BooE
As to the Discipline, he Acknowledges him
self willing to stake it somewhat upon
trust, having more confidence in the opin-
ions of "ThOrnvell, Breckenridge, Hodge,
NeGiU, Dabney, Adger, Baird and others,
than he has in his own. This modest ac-
acknowledgement is somewhat in contrast with
DR.. R. s comments upon the Form Of Coz
ernnsnt, one of the chief excellencies Of
which he claims to be its entire freedom from
the "Latitudinarian Presbyterianism' Of
the Northern Church. Now, when it is re-
membered that our Old Form of Govern
ment was the work of such men as Ashbel
Green, Samuel Miller, John NJ, Mason, -
Rogers, Archibald Alexander, and others Of
like reputation for wisdom, learning and
soundness in the faith; and that their work
has for more than half century received
the unqualified approval Of at least three
(yiz: Breckenridge, Hodge and NcGiI,) of
the ministers on whose endorsement DR.. K.
is willing to take the Discipline con trust;
how happens it, that DR.. r. is finding so
much fault with the Old Book, and lauding
to the skies the New Book now offered to the
Presbyteries for their approval and adoption,
as in all respects superior? DR.. R. proceeds
to say, that sin his view, the grand excel
lency of the thing is that there are no nOrel-
ties it." All, indeed $40 Novelties in
it? This sounds very oracular coming from
DR.. Robinson, but is he borne out by the
facts of the case? So far from this, was it
not mainly on account of this very objection
that the Presbyteries with almost unequalled
unanimity, rejected the Book Of Church
Order" And in what important particular
does the Revised Book differ from that?-
True, we find some of the most Objectionable
forms of expression have been omitted in the
Revised Book, but it is the same in all es-
seutial particulars. Why, then, should DR..
r. and other advocates of the rejected Book
so persistently press its claims upon the
Presbyteries again? And especially must l
be allowed to ask DR.. r. why he should feel
himself called on to ofer in the most dis
courteous terms, the suggestion that "the
discussion and decision of these questions
should not be embarrassed by trigolous
crjticism or ommanly Partjzan eant2 ?" And
why does he talk of ''street-corner pOliti-
clan, and of ''some usurping Diotrephes,' -
as though he had never heard the adsge-
'people that live iu glass houses ought not
to throw stones ?"
But I have been led off by those person
alities on the part of Dr. R. from saying
what was chiefly in my mind to say on one
special point of great Importance; at the
same time expressing my surprise that one
who has witnessed the struggles and fierce
Itigations over church property in Kentucky
and Missouri during the last four years,
could have failed to discover at least one
defect in the Revised Book, because he must
know that the turning point Of all this Gti-
CATION has been the jurisdiction and powers
of the General Assembly. Those who have
read the able and interesting article in the
Southern Presbyterian Rspie0 for January,
1870, entitled Church property Litigation
in Kentucky and Missouri, viii understand
what I mean. In Missouri, the Radical
Judges have had it all their own way; and
by givinga Radical Interpretation to the Old
Form of Government, have sanctioned all
the outrageous proceedings of the General
Assembly of 1867, as having been done
under proper authority; the consequence of
which is, that the church property all goes
to the Assembly men. In Kentucky, the
same Radical views were held by the Circuit
Judges; but fortunately, when the cases
decided by them were reviewed by the Su
preme Court of Appeals, they were reversed; :;
and the litigation seems now likely to termi-
nate in favor of the Declaration and Testi-
mony party, though they are still embar-
rassed with numerous difficulties thrown in
their way by Radical inesse and chichanery
in the Federal Courts.