The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1873-02-12
From the Christian IntelIigencer.
The Central Presbyterian on Organic
Union.


Some weeks ago. we informed our readers that
the Central PresJyteri1n, of Richmond, Va, had
begun series Of articles on the difficulties which,
10 it's view, were in the way of organic union be
tween its Assembly and our Synod. This series Is
formally concluded In its last issue, and our read
ers will now wish to know wherein the contem-
plated difficulties consist. La gratifying this wish
We do not hold ourselves obliged or even at liberty
to discuss the points which the Central PreSbyte-
riaa has raised. A careful estimation of the %
stacles thus suggested will no doubt be made by
our Synod's committee before they report on the
disturbances and feasibility of the suggested
union and it is well, on every account that so can
did statement OF objections should be within
their reach. But it would be premature and in
delicate for US to trench upon their work. There
seems to be no such improperly, however, in cor
recting some mistakes of fact into which the Cen
trail Presbyterian has urintentionally fallen Ii is
not wonderful that churches which have had con-
paraively little intercourse should not fully under
stand each other even when they form their opin
ions upon authoritative documents. The hearty
lie of Church, as OF a man, has features that
cannot be fairly estimated, except IN actual init
macy. And 1t may be one considerable advantage
Of discussing this question of union, that however
the question may be decided the parties who shall
|
forth esteem each other more.
The Central Presbyterian insists upon three chief
obstacles to organic union between the Southern
Assembly and our Synod.
The first is the possession by the two Churches
of two different confessions of faith. Its assumed
that neither Church will forsake its own confession
! for that OF the other; and even the mutual adop=
ton OF the two confessions, which would SEEM We
think, to be- the most natural metnod; Is thought
| .ka thar
regret that the article this subject has not fallen
under our eye This very brief description OF II
we base on an abstract made by another paper.
The second objection TO union Is found 10 the
litureica character of our Church. The most ma
terial evidence on this subject is derived from the
history of the committee on the Liturgy, which
vas appointed by our Synod in 1868, aud which
has hitherto only reported progress. But this
it did, ia 1871 10 such energetic terms that we do
not wonder at finding them quoted, at distance,
in proof of our strenuous adherence TO llturglcal
worship. The facts, however, so nearly as We
know them, are these There are some OF our
ministers, much respected and beloved. who greatly
insist upon the liturgcal character OF our Church.
and who would he glad to have that character more
fully defined. To the feeling of such that commit
tee owed its appointment, and the report OF 1911
expressed their feeling In the strongest TERMS
Bat the committee have never agreed upon re
rate interest 10 their task, and it is quite certain
that no report on that subject, even II unanimous
IL made could be adopted IN our Church, II 1t pro-
posed to enjOiR even the simplest addition to the
forms we have Those forms are these: The very
brief salutation by the minister, OF Grace, mer
cy, and peace" etc., Immediately after the open
ing prayer Of the morning service, and the reading
of the DecaOgue before the other selection o.
Scripture. % sacramental occasions our dldlcu'
q sboN ~ aaf
bv the minister and similar explanatory forms ar,
used on the inrequent occasions OF ordination.
An ATTEMPT has been made, indeed, and witt
SInodical approval to persuade the people to re
cite the Apostles Greed, where 1t occurs IN the
communion service. But we have not certain
knowledge of five churches 10 our denomination IL
which the attempt has succeeded. There may
easily be many more Yet certain 1t Is that witt
all the sanction which this usage pleads IN th'
earlier practice of the Holland churches, the mos
of our congregations have no inclination to return
to it. There could hardly be clearer proof OF tn
lack of iturgica feeling 10 the great body OF GU
people. The truth is-and some of our minister
regret it, and some do not-that the stanchest Pres
byterian can worship in almost any OF our churche
and according constitutional form, and scarce
ly detect that the service has any hturgIeal oil
terences from his own.
A third objection to the union of the churches i
Churches in regard to the permanence OF the othc,
of ruling elder 1.-The Reformed Church. 1t Il
said, "suliect an elder to complete divest
ment Of his off &C as can be Imagined The mis-
take arises from inadequate information. In
formula, "once an elder always an elder, Is eve
a proverb among our churches which see no NOR
demi,sion of Office when ruling elder ceases t.
have actual rule, than when ruling elder VIII
also ministers in word and doctrine ceases Il
| - IL
thing among US to appoint as delegate to our Gen
eral Synod an elder who is Dot at the time In tn
exercise OF rule over particular congregation.
any inconsistency be thought TO lie 10 such
I practice, we are not now concerned to defend II
We ofly qloe the custom as inal proof of the doc
trine of our Church concerning the lifelong per
manence of the Office of ruling elder.
! The fna article notices briefly that our Con
stituton gives to consistories the right to cleo
ministers, aud only advises them to consult tn
J choice of their congregations Ii is enough to sa
that in almost every instance the approval OF tn
people is necessary to the minister support, an
their views, accordingly to be ascertafned
though commonly by methods more conducive t
unaDmty and good feeling than formal vote i
public meeting In this feature of our constitu
ton, our churches very generally believe they hav
S nothing to regret.
e The same concluding article touches upon tn
territorial separation of the two Churches, an
questions the opinion, expressed by some, that tb
financial interest of the Southern Church eithe
D needs or could be served by union with our own.
The articles have for the most part, malntalne
the careful courtesy with which they began. 5
far as it shall now appear that they have includes
any miscOnception OF our Church, we shall be gla
? to have our corrections recognized; for while it
not our province to predict the formal relations o
the two Churches, we have just interest in bay
ing the Reformed Church fairly understood. w
are very sure that the cordial respect which tn
Central Presbyterian expresses for our denomina
5 uon would in the particulars above referred to
greatly increase with fuller knowledge OF our usage
and spirit.