The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-03-30
RooK o. cHURcH oRpER.

The first page Of this paper contains a commun
ication under the signature of IF. j., " in reply
to an article of the Rev. Stuart Robinson D. D.
which we published two weeks ago, and which
has been published also in all the papers Of om
Church Ii is not without hesitation We give
place to the personalities found in the article OF
IF. j.. Perhaps he was not aware that in one
of our religious papers piece had just appeared,
quite Incorporate in the style, in which it reflected
upon the last General Assembly if not upon others.
We understood Dr. Robinson as having that ar
tice in his eye, for it was up to that time the only
departure from what is becoming in the discussion
of the matters submitted by the last Assembly.
IF so. DR.. Robinson could not be personal as to
others. and as our desire is to prevent or compose
any disturbed feeling touching a matter where
there is no reason for it whatever, we regret that
"F. j" should treat remarks aimed only at very
reprehensbe style Of discussing such grave mat
tiers. as if he considered himself included.
He SAYS DR.. Robinson's "chief purpose was to
let the Church know that DR.. R. 0pprOres Of the
revised Bo0k" Is this fair? We fail to dis
cover in the article any thing ustitying such harsh
reflection Have not brethren right to express
their views on this subject? Has not our friend
Fl. j" himself done it repeatedly and freely?
What if this very article should be aseribed to a
desire on his part to let the Church know that he
was not in favor of the Book? Let US dismiss all
such kind Of remarks-irreevant, to say the least.
The question who were the chief authors of the
old book or of the new, is enc Of very small mo-
ment. The practical question is, which will more
surely and safely reach the necessities Of the
Church. The old book has doubtless done good
in its day. For a while it answered the purpose
for which it was prepared; but the larger the
Church has grown, the greater have defects IN the
existing form Of government shown themselves 70
be. The makers of it were the first to see Its
faults; and the Assembly had hardly been organ
lied under it until amendments were found need
ful. Ii would be very marvellous if the Church
had learned nothing during more than halt a cen
fury. as to the development and practical working
Gifts priuciples-as to its own spirit and life.
Our correspondent must be mistaken in saying
that the old Book for more than halt a century met
the unqualified approval of Drs. Breckenridge,
Hodge, and OIcGn All Of these very men were
appointed by the General Assembly of 1857, on the
committee to revise that very Book. They re
ported their revision in 1858. The subject was
referred back to them for further revision, and
they made report again in 1860
But the argument is Let well enough alone.
We have got along so wen under the present book,
let us not alter it. Certainly change for mere
change sake is a worthless plea; and so is the cry
about reverence for our fore fathers-sure to be
1,k tb e,r n
change be the most stringent possible. We shall
not 20 into a minute examination of the sehisms
which have repeatedly and so sadly rent the Pres
byterian Church in this country Nor shall we be
so un1easonableas to aseribe them solely to defects
in our Book of Government and Discipline They
doubtless had roots elsewhere. But this We affirm
with much con6dence-and do not see how it can
be controverted by any weI-iuformed student Of
our Church history-that every one Of them was
PREVIOUSLY complicated by questions as to the pow
er of the General Assembly to do this or that
Pure minded men, sound in the faith, have been
RANGED on different sides-have been alienated
and painfully rent aSunder, each side being able to
give forcble reasons, under the Constitution, why
the things complained of should be done, and why
thew should not be done. 1t would indeed be a
sbort-sghted view Of human affairs to suppose
that any Constitution can be so framed as to cut
off all controversies about its meaning and its
powers. But we DO claim that much of what has
arisen might unquestionably have been prevented,
had our organic law been more explicit And as
our Southern Church is at present so well agreed
in regard to all that class Of questions pertaining
to the power which ought to be exercised by the
General Assembly, We can never have better
time to fore-guar5 it against future dangers. And
# the provisions Of this rev Book had been the
law OF the Church, il is not probable that the
civil Courts, even in Missouri, could have given, IN