The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1874-06-24
PRESBYTERIAN COUNCIL AGAIN.

PRESBYTERIAN COUNCIL AGAIN.
DR.. Plumer remarked, upon resuming thi
subject, that the resolutions of his report
did not favor ecclesiastical, or judicial, bu
only moral and advisory power, and the ap
pointment of one minister and one elder as
delegates.
DR.. Fl. III. Smith said he was afraid oi
this movement because he didn know where
it was leading. In an old grave yard in
Macon, Ca, there is an epitaph containing
these two lines:
AS am now,
So you must be-.
Some one wrote beneath it:
"To follow the youth I'm not content,
Until know where he has went.
He was afraid of this scheme, for one thing,
because DR.. McCosh is behind it. Then too
an irresponsible organization will have the
control of it. It did not originate from the
Churches. Was it not an incongruous atti-
tude for the Church, in its organized capacity.
to be controlled by an organization which,
though composed of good men, was not
Church at all
He read from speech of Dr.. McCosh on
this subject in which the expression is used,
" 1t is not we'll to carry organic union much
farther" This looked suspicious, as showing
whittier the scheme tended. DR.. McCosh
goes on to mention the advantages of this
scheme, and how it could be carried out for
example, in the work of Foreign Missions.
We would be expected to join in this scheme,
and our Church courts to become subordi-
nate to this voluntary association, in our
missionary work. There seemed to be a
great ambition to have all the hosts of the
Church combined and marshalled in this en-
terprise under one leadership. 1t twas high
ambition. But is it safe; are we willing to
come and take our place in it, and put the
organized Church of Christ under the power,
or inf lence of any irresponsible association? !?
Is that consistent with our principles
DR.. Smith then offered substitute for the
report of the committee, which was adopted,
upon count, by vote of AZ to 81, and is
as follows:
In answer to the overture from a Commit
tee of the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian Church in the United States of
America, and from ministers of other Pres
byteriau churches, touching a conference of
representatives of the various Presbyterian
bodies throughout the world, with a view of
coming into formal communion with each
other, and of promoting great causes by joint
action" this Assembly respectfully submits
that we most heartily sympathise with every
desire to advance the interests of the Re-
deemer's kingdom. Nevertheless in forming
relations with other bodies, we are to be gov
erned by our recognized principles of gov
ernment. We must therefore respectfully
decline this request, since in our judgment
Church courts, as such, cannot recognize the
principle of an irresponsible Alliance. The
only question we can properly consider is
the principle of coordination with courts
constituted according to our "Presbyterian
form of Government"
The report presented by DR.. Pumer, and
for which the one above was adopted as a
substitute, is as follows:
"The committee to whom were referred
certain papers respecting General Council
of representatives of the various families of
Presbyterian churches throughout the world,
recommend the adoption of the following
resolutions:
l. That the printed paper which states
the matter fully be read before the Assembly.
2. That as the influence of said Council
would be wholly advisory and moral, and not
at all judicial or ecclesiastical. we anticipate
no evil but, in certain contingencies, much
good resulting from its existence, this AS
Sembly will appoint one minister and one
elder, who for the present shall meet and CO.
operate in such measures as are herein con-
templated."
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE WITH COMMITTEE
OF THE NORTHERN ASSEMBLY.
When the names of this committee (viz /:
Drs. Brown, Farris, Palmer, Hon. j. A.
Inglis, Hon. B. M. Estes were announced
by the Moderator, he at the same time
mentioned that he would have appointed
Judge Fentress as one of the number had he
not received request from him to the con-
trary.
DR.. IT. N. Smith, of New Orleans, said
he was authorised to state that DR.. Palmer
preferred not to be on this committee, but if
appointed he intended it to be understood
that he must be free to act according to his
own convictions of duty.
ReU. d. 0. Davies thought that after this
announcement, while he entertained the
highest regard and affection for DR.. Palmer
personally, ne could not serve on this CON-
mittee acceptably. He construed this an.
nouncement as virtual resignation, and
moved its acceptance. This motion after
some conversational remarks was withdrawn.
DR.. Matthews considered that as the ap.
pointment of this committee had been en-
trusted to the Moderator, his action was final.
THE Moderator thought differently; it was
entirely within the power of the house to
overrule his appointments.
DR.. Kirkpatrick was not afraid to trust
the Moderator with any interest of the
Church Nor was be afraid to trust DIR.
Palmer, having the highest admiration Of
him aud confidence in him, as our whole
Church had. 1t was every way proper that
the views held by the minority should have
some representation in that committee. II
was an excellent selection, and he now moved
that it be confirmed by vote of the Assem-
bly,. After few words of the same pur.
port from DR.. H. M Smith, G. A. Caldwell,
Mr.. Rochester and others, the motion of Dr.
kirkpatrick was carried, the Assembly ris-
ing, and only two voting in the negative
DR.. Kirkpatrick was appointed alternate to
any member of the committee failing to at
tend.
1t may be proper to state that when the
duty of appointing this committee was as,
signed to the Moderator, he expressed his