The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1872-06-12

has been under consideration by so many Assem-
blies and Presbyteries, during period OF fourteen
or fifteen years, is not to be ridicusd, or denounced
as revolutionary or useless, or foolish, or unworthy
of this PRESBYTERIAN Assembly. Those Assemblies
and Presbyteries are the bodies that have a. ted In
this matter. They have made this Book what 1t u.s.
It is not what DIR Thornwell's committee reported,
but that report altered in great variety OF parcu-
lars. 1t is not what your committee reported hrst
to the Assembly at Memphis but it Is their report
considerably modified great many things have
been introduced or left out great many expires
sions have been modified and altered; and the mat
ter clarified, smplifed, and in variety OF partlcu'
lars improved, And, who did it? The Presb}te-
ries did it The last touch, which has brought 1t to
what it is now is the handywork of the Presbyteres
| submit that it is not precisely as inopportune or
as unsuitable for this Assembly to go forward with
this matter, as Dr. Plumer remarked The breth
rem who have been working at this Book so long did
not think it was inopportune. He may be right, and
they may be wrong; but call attention to the fact
that large majority, at least OF our Presbyteres
have been willing 20 consider the matter, and have
taken considerable interest in it, The General AS
sembles have from the start decided that 1t was OPP
perfume. DR.. Pumer says that we are making
bars" when we ought to be getting out the grass
God be praised sir that our Church has been dong
something better than "making bars, in the cult,
walton of her field The reports OF the committees,
knowledge of what has been going, do not justify
the statement that our plantation has been suffered
to go to grass while we have been making bars.
Dr. Plumer says that we have been changing fun
damental laws | submit it to the Assembly whether
he is borne out that statement by the history that
have given, truthfuy and fairly of these changes.
BE says he does not believe in definitions DE be-
eves in stories, and interarded his speeches with
many which, for one, did not enjoy very much
He told us about Becky and Sally" and the old
man grinding away at his dry toast" L could
very willingly have dispensed with these anecdotes,
and submitted to a few definitions. Does he mean
to say that our standards have no definitions in
them2 He is theological Professor; does he mean
to stand up before this Assembly and denounce the
idea of definitions by Church courts? Has he for
gotten the Shorter Cstechsm, which is full of def
nitions? Is his argument good one-is 1t worth
anything-to tell us that the ptures do not deal
in definitions? Is it true that they do not? Are the
Books of our Church to be ridiculed-the Shorter
Catechism to be objected to-because it deals in
definitions? This work of your Assemblies and all
your Presbyteries and your committee has been rid
iculed dictionary, because 1t deals IN definitions
Definitions in their place are excellent things.
DR.. Plumer forewarns US that if we 30 forward
in this matter, we will split the Church. He says
that hundreds will not stand it. He declares that
he will quit studying the Digest and the Book OF
Discipline. That would not be so great loss, as if
he were a man that believes in definitions. But
do not believe he will quit studying it, if you adopt
this Book | think his love OF study will prevail
and that he will help hereafter to understand aud
apply the print ipls IS of the New Book, which now
seem to be so dIsagreeable to him. As to the pre-
diction that hundreds will not stand the New Book
and that the Church will be split, humbly submit
that the history have given does no bear out the
prediction The Church has not been split thus far
nor have heard of any beginning of split in the
Church made by the discussions that have taken
place on this subject. He supposed the case of a
venerated minister moving to Hong Kong, and
thought that he would be driven out of our Church
by the operation of one of these sections. He did
not seem to notice that there is clear provision
"for satisfactory reasons" He drew a piteous &C.
count of some of our old fathers who might be
turned out without ceremony. The section which
he crticizes certainly does not intend to do any
injustice to our old fathers or to any of our breth-
rem.
will make only one more point, and that is with
reference to what DR.. Plumer and the brother from
Louisville, and the resolution at present under dis
cusson also, said about agitation" There has
been so much agitation this subject, and so much
damage has been done by the agitation that you are
invoked to put an end to It'll You were told the
other day that revolutionary times were times in
which dead-letter laws were made. never under
stood it that way. | always understood that such
were times when principles were considered and
discussed. So far it is true, that this report con-
siders principles submit that it is sui able to the
times in which we are now living. 1t is right that
we should spend time that way and no harm has
accrued to our church from the examination of the
principles OF Church government, and the rules
of Discipline. The time of the Reformation was
one of earnest agitation-a stormy time. They
looked into principles they did not make dead let
ter laws. Those were stormy days, the latter days
of the Reformation, when the Reformed Confessions
we're adopted-from 1900 onward for few years,
for the Belgic, the Gallo, the Scotch Confessions
and the Hedelburg Cstechism were all adopted
nearly contemporaneously. Suppose it had been
said to them, that that no time to be considering
such matters The days of the Westminster As.
sembly were stormy times When our present Con.
stitution adopted, in 1888, few years after the
Constitution of the United States was adopted the
times were somewhat stormy-somewhat like the
present We are just walking in the track of our
| fathers. ! maintain that we are not altering fun.
| damental law We are only examining the founda.
tons. | maintain that we have introduced no new
principles at all. We have only-and as we sup.
posed upon high authority, the authority of the
General Assembly and the Presbyteries introduced
better methods of applying these principles. | do
believe that the life of the Church is promoted not
damaged by this kind of work. hope | have no
undue zeal for the work l have been good deal
engaged in. have been informed by great variety
OF brethren that their judgment is that the discus
sions which have taken place in the Presbyteries,
oceasoned by the examination OF these formuIaries,
have been very profitable. l never heard of any
divisions, of any bad feelings, because like good,
honest Presbyterians, while the storm was rocking
our building atthe top we have been quietly exam
ing the foundations; while the sails have been hut-
terng in the breeze, we have been looking to see
how it was with the hull-whether any leak was
springing. We have been engaged in no revolution
airy or dangerous business, but in one that has had
very much to do with the promotion of the life and
the highest interest of the Church.
TO BE CONTINUED NEXT WEEK.