The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1873-02-12
THE CHRISTIAN INFELLIGENCER" ON
ORGANIC UNION.

week, gives what lt understands TO be cor
rectiOns" Of "sOme mistakes of fact into
which the Central Presbyterian has fallen,
and desires to have them recognized by US,
The best way to do this is to transfer the
article Of our cotemporary to the columns of
this paper, so that our readers may Judge for
themselves. We made a sincere effort to
maintain "careful courtesy, not only
"for tie most part, but in every part Of
what has been said on the subject, aud would
much regret if there has been failure in
any particular-Of which we are not aware.
Letters from esteemed brethren in cur own
communion have strongly commended the
spirit in which the discussion has been con-
Quoted As to mistakes in the facts involved,
We were from the first aware how difficult it
would be to avoid them when one undertakes
to speak of affairs in another Church, and
with which he has had no opportunities for
a special acquaintance. At some expense.
and no small trouble, We sought the most
authentic sources Of information within cur
reach, and have made no statements except
such as were believed to be sustained by the
best authority. How far their value has
been impaired by what is found in the article
from the Christian Iateligenesr, viii be de-
termined by our readers for themselves, upon
a fair comparison Of what is presented from
both sides. We offer a few thoughts on the
correctness Of our supposed mistakes.
Concerning the Liturgy.-The statements
of the LatslLgmesr, which we hope viii be
carefully noticed, suggest the following re-
marks:
L. 1t is plain that there is no small diver
sity of opinion on this subject in the Re
formed Church itself, some greatly insist
upon the liturgieal character of our Church, %
&C., while others are wholly Indifferent
"SQme Of our ministers regret il, and some
do not, that the stauuchest Presbyterian can
worship" &c.
,. 1t strikes US as exceedingly strange if
the General Synod would commit itself to
the adoption Of a paper, such as we quoted
in our article, out of mere compliment to a
minority of its own body. If our readers
viii revert to that paper they viii observe
that the language used, not only in favor Of
the existing liturgy but Of enlarging it, is of
the very strongest character. Can it be
possible that the General Synod of 1871,
would by solemn vote commit itself to the
language of that report simply out Of re
speet to the feelings Of "sOme Of our minis
ters, much respected and beloved p
8. We are told that this committee have
never agreed upon a report, aud that " it is
plain that they do not feel even a moderate
interest in their task, &c. Really we are
unable to see that this is plain; first because
in 1872, The committee on the revision
Of the Liturgy reported progress. Their
report was accepted, and the committee was
continued to report at the merit General Sy-
nod see Acts aud Proceedings of General
Synod for 1872, page 1907
Second, because we find that in 1869, a
year before the report referred to, the Cen
eral Synod adopted the following views
"Tbe worship Of the Tri-uuo God has been duly
and reyerently celebrated 10 most of our churches,
without any gross departure from our ancient and
excellent t0rmS-thOse forms which have Witnessed
for many generations TO the truth as iJ Is no Jesus
Christ. We cannot, however, but express our
concern lest the venerable sacramento forms, the
use OF which is binding on all our minister's should
be gradually laid aside, or replaced by crude, ex-
temp0raneOuS illusions at the Will Of particular
ceebrants The Semi-G,urgical character Of our
worship is q distinctive feature of this Church.
lt Is ln itself as noble as 10 rs evangelical lt Is
sacred and fragrant with the memories of q past
as great aud august as that Of any sister Church,
and should be cherished IN love ard reverence TO
the fathers. Possibly some of those forms may
need some slight revision to adapt them 10 the
wants and taste Of own time; but the substance
Of them should be sacredIy preserved. When our
bhuW falls INTO utter neglect. 0Ur apology for a
distinct dlH0W00t0RIl existence CiU hare passed
QJCgg.' See Acts, &c., P
The last sentence We mark with italics,
and ask that it may be compared with the
intimation about the lack of q Etygicql
feeling" If there be any in the body of
the people, surely there can be none in the
body Of the General Synod which adopted
such a paper.
4. The Lnte'Hgeacsr says, "it is quite
certain that no report on that subject, even
unanimously made, could be adopted in our
Church, if it is proposed to sqJoin even the
simplest addition to the forms we have.
This may be accepted as entirely correct,
both on account of the well-informed source
from which it comes, and its own reasona-
bleness. For, be it remembered, that the
Reformed Church has already between
tlesRty and thirty pages Of strictly saOiRed
liturgy Ba, whether enjoiued or optional,
is not the point made in our discussion.
We did not take up the question on its
merits, that is, whether a liturgy is the
best form Of worship. Our remarks kept
close to the practical evidence that orr olon
Church had shown unmistakably and almost
unanimously its decided opposition to any