The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-11-05
SYNOD OF VIRGINIA.
TRcpDrted Tor The Richmond Dlspatch.I
THIRD DAY,

Hi DAY.
THURSDAY, November 8, 1870.
SYNOD met at OK A. NJ, and after prayer
nrornpded to hear reports, ETC., Till lO
O'Clock. when the order of the day, the di-
| vision of SYNOD, was taken up, the propo-
| siton before the body being the report OF
| the committee made last year for dividing
| off the following Presbytcrles into the s!-
| nod Of northern Virginia-viz:, Green3rler,
Lexington, Winchester. n Chesapeake.
Rev, DR.. Armstrong offered rs Il suoStl-
tute the following division into three sy-
mods ~
/. Grceubrier, Lexington, and Winches-
2. Fast Hanover, West Hanover, and
| Chesapeake.
8. Abingdon. Montgomery, and Roanoke:
| DR.. +. i. Atkinson. of Danyille, objected
to the tripartite division, and saw no better
| reason ior it than Rory VMoore's argument
| that "there's luck in odd numbers"
DR.. Hammer, of Baltimore, offered as n
tcSt question IL proposition hat II is mex
| pedient to divide at all.
DR.. j. NJ. p. Atkinson, Of Hampden Sid
ncv, argued that this proposition should
| not he put to the vote, because the wishes
O: members on the general subject of d.
vision We're regulated by their views III re-
spect to the lines of division.
frey. DR.. W. T. Broaddus, Of the Bap-
fist Church, being present, was invited to
sit us corresponding member also, DIR. ID.
y. Junk,n, Of the Synod Of Pittsburg.
The question of division being resumed,
DR.. Hammer withdrew his proposition, and
the Rev. s. W. Watkins moved that the
question be, ">hall we divide!"
DR.. H.. B. White opposed this on the
same ground taken by DIR. Atkinson, illus
| trating his views by the votes given in re-
| sUect to the removal of q county court
house when the electors were unwilling to
| give their suffrage unless the locality was
| specified.
Sir. Watkins by general consent with
| drew his proposal, and the question came
up on DR.. Armstrong; substitute for three
Synods. ,
Rev. w. f. Baker offered rs an argument
! in favor of division that the Committee OH
| Leave OF Absence, owing to long distances,
late arrivals, and early departures Of men,
bers, had more to do than all the other COM
| mitteeS.
This was a question between Old Vir-
| ginia feeling and Christian t~eeling-not
being an old Virqintan, he must be guided
by Christian duty. He wanted saltwater
front, being in danger of becoming green
and fresh in the mountains, but feared that
if Lexington P~resbytery were united with
| chesapeake fTcSuSLeiS, tuc alIlfdl VI gu
many country members from the noun
taans would be too much for the polished
cities Of that Presbytery. He hoped that
this old Virginia feeling would yield to the
interests ofthe Church.
Rev. S. w. Watkins opposeds division.
He did not think absentees would attend
any better if the Synod should meet nearer
to them. He thought the sign OF the body
and the excitement OF its large meetings
made it more commanding. He did not be-
| lieye either that the sense of obligation to
attend would be increased by division.
Rev. j. r. Bowman, of Harrisonburg,
said that members, with the fear Of the Cen
traL Presbyterian before their eyes, came
in large numbers to I'll meetings, and
made them So large as to exclude v~ieitors,
and 30 defeat the object mentioned by Mr
/ Watkins. We could not bring our wives
and children !; and others forebore to come
, for fear Of too much pressure on the places
/ where we meet. If the Synods were smaller
] more who wished to come could attend.
/, Rev. I. W. Hooper opposed division. He
said there were twelve places in our bounds
that could accommodate the present body
aud illustrated his view that the moral in.
flucncc Of tho larger body was desirable,
Having been connected with q small SYNOD
formerly be spoke from experience on this
point.
Rev. B. W. Moseley was In favor of divi-
sion on the ground of the expense of at
tending and of entertaining Synod.
Rev. E. D.. Junkin said he could entertain
the synod at his country church, New Pro-
| violence, in Augusta.
Ncy. 2. Fletcher said there were fifteen
places that could entertain Synod.
Rev. j. ID. Thomas said that WvtheyilIe
could not entertain the body, nor Abing-
I! don, though they wanted il.
Rev. K. G.. Walker said that brethren
might produce the impression that LeXing-
ton P~resbytely was in favor of division, but
the question had been laid on the table in
that body.
DR.. Dabney had no aalmus on the SUBJ
ject, but was inclined to let well enough
alone. Mr.. Watkins'S point on dbSenteeiSm
was well taken. They had found in West
Hanover Presbytery that d~elinquents at
tended the body no better since its division
into two Presbyteries. AS to the ability to
accommodate the body, he cited the decla-
ration Of a mother in Israel to the effect
that she could entertain the whole Synod.
Virginia farmers had not always found that
small farms well titled were more profitable
than larger ones. Some Of them said that
this method brought them in debt. 1t is
hard work to cultivate a large farm not well
manured, but it was better than 5uDrao
corn. lie quoted the remark of q Speaker
of the House Ut Representatives, who said
I large body was easier To control than a
small one. AS a professor in the seminary
be considered the interests OF that institu.
ton, which was now under the control oil
the Synods of Virginia and North Carolina,
each Of which furnished twelve directors.
If this body were divided into three, they
must ask the Synod of North Carolina to
give the control on this side to three Synods
instead Of 0ne, and TO reduce their own
number OF directors to six, OF, dtsgorge,
which wasslways q difficult operation. He
further illustrated this point.
Rev. w. V. Wilson, Of Marion, wished
that some of the brethren who opposed the
division could know the difficulties Of at,
tending this body BY members on the Ten
nessee border, Moreover, the people In
those quarters who saw large meetings OF
other denominations never saw any Of our
meetings but small Presbyteries, and
thought Presbyterianism vas noaubere. In
reply to DR.. Dabney's argument in refer
/ ence to the seminary, Ike said; that the three
| Synods would retain the same share that
the n hasnows and would divide it among
them. 4 -.
DIR. r. b. White, of Fauquier, said that
the meetings of these small Synods would
he insigniicaat-a nero corporal 40
lis better for The people to hear at s distance
|ns she meeftngg nf this great body thar
Ito zee Preabyseslspisn represented befpre