The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-07-05
YOUR OK AND MINE.

During tho meeting Of our last Assembly the
question Of aboiShing the rule requiring Presby-
teries to examine all ministers applying for admis
sion as members was under discussion. Among those
who were in favor of continuing the rule, at least
for the present, land the Assembly so decided)
was the Rev W. W. Hill D. D., of Kentucky.
Dr. Hill referred as matter of history to the fact,
that during the troubles in the Presbyterian Church
from 1880, to 1887, number OF Presbyteries were
packed by the American Home Missionary Society,
aud in this way partizan delegates secured for the
General Assembly who were pledged to sustain
certain policy. He also showed, by way of ilustra
tion how we might without the protection of this
rule be again exposed, in a certain contingency to
trouble of the same kind, If a scheme should
be set on foot to work our Church or any section
Of il back into connection with the Northern Church.
the men and money of Northern Presbyteries
might De sent down into our border Presbyteries,
and then the operation be extended by their taking
dismission to other Presbyteries. Those who
wish can read DR.. Hills speech in the Central
Presbyterian of June It'll. The illustration was
very sensible one-leaving out Of view the merits
Of the general question, about which we say
nothing here.
The Nelg York Observer is Mortified at the speech
of cur Kentucky brother 1t quotes that part Of
it 10 which the following language is used concern
ing Northern Presbyterians
81 am glad for all the good they can do love
them as brethren l think they are in error, that
they ought to recant their error If they reeant,
aud become real Presbyterians as we are should
hail the day and rejoice to unite with them. But
a. k,r~a ~ uat mn DrOt
selves against them"
Tbereupon the Neo York O5serrer ezclaims and
comments after this sort:
and such language as this comes from the lips
of a minister of Jesus Christ in the year of the
Lord, 1871 1t fills us first with amazement, then
with pity, and finally with disgust. But 1t is emf
nently characteristic and worthy of being studied
for its philosophy, its Christianity, and its civiza-
ton! The philosophy Of 1t appears IN DIR. Hlts
proposal to protect himself against those whom ne
loves. II has been the common sentiment OF man
kind that our foes only to be feared, while the
nearer we get to our friends the safer and the better
tor US The Christianity of it is found in the fact
that we are taught TO love our enemies, and DR.,
Hill doubtless loves his brethren In the sense OF
enemies and so fulfls the law of Christ And the
civilization is resplendent in the spectacle of stall
wart Kentuckian like DR.. Hill, building barrieade
in front of his Presbytery to keep out the brethren
whom he loves lest they should get IN and help to
restore the unity of the Church,
The editor winds up the expression of his pious
disgust with an ALAS for poor human nature"
and with the hope he had entertained " that such
nonsense as this would never more be heard
But when we find our ancient friend and class
mate, Hill, rallying his followers to protect them
selves against those they love- We have doubts
about the Millennium being very nigh
There are a few questions and remarks suggested
10y what the Observer says,
l. Did not the Northern Assemblies, both Old
and New School declare that they would not re-
ceive into fellowship Southern ministers unless
they repeuted Of the sins they had committed?-
Did not the Old School Assembly of 1865 say
"Tbey know no scriptural way by which those
who have gone out from US procaiming heresy,
can be restored to the bosom of the Church, until
after reeantation, or those who have fallen into the
grievous sin Of treason, but upon confession and
repentance
>. Did not these bodies at the same time profess
that they loved US very much? Aud if SO grant
ing for arguments sake the most that could be al
edgedl how does their case differ from that of DR..
HIS?
8. Was the Nel1 York Observer IL those days at
all troubled first with amazement then with pity,
and finally with disgust" Did it not express its
approval of this action
4. Did not the Observer, in 1867 use the follow
ing language and was it not this very classmate
and irieud" of Dr. Hill that wrote it?l-" We say,
then, deliberately as the result Of our experience
and correspondence and personal observation in
the South, and as the summing up of all the in.