The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1874-07-08
LET 1T BE VIEWED FAIRLY.

The LlefQlu ana ftolytcf \OLuciuuollI VI - ulg
lst. has an editorial article concerning Ffateraat
relations lcitb tbs South " 1t opens thus:
The prospect seems not very hopeful that the
proposal made by our General Assembly at Bal
imore last YEAR for closer relations with the
Southern Presbyterian Church will amount to any
thing very satisfactory. The Southern General
Assembly, 90 It's late meeting appointed com
mitee 20 meet our committee, but not t after pro
longed debate and strong opposition, whereas our
proposal was passed unanimously.
All the Southern Presbyterian papers have
spoken on the subject, and the general expression
is about the same as that made last year after the
action of our Assembly at Baltimore. The lmme-
date occasion Of their present TemOnsTanceS is the
action OF our Assembly, recently taken at st
Louis IN receiving and responding to the paper
presented by Dr. James II. BrOOkes, OF that city,
IN behalf Of himself and several others OF the H.
dependent Synod Of Missouri
After some further remarks about this action OF
their General Assembly, and the expectation that
Dr. Brookes aud others will soon join them the
Herald and Res5yter says:
The Southern papers, on the other hand, attack
our recent action vehemenuy. They see in it all
sorts of had things which We prefer not to name,
and attribute unworthy motives IN Its adoption.
The Rttsbwg Banner a few weeks ago referred
to an article IN the Central Presbyterian which
contained some remarks concerning the resolution
adopted by the Assembly in st. Louis, in connec-
ton with the memorial of Dr. Brookes and others.
The Banner iutimates that we accused that As.
sembly Of dupHcity, and after referring to US by
name as a member of the Committee Of Conference
on the part of our Church, winds up by saying that
il such IS the spirit Of the Southern Presbyterian
Church. the Committees of Conference may as
well not meet at all.
The Presbyterian Weetly, paper recently start
ed in Baltimore, and breathing kind spirit, after
quoting part Of our article on this subject, asks
"Wen, brethren, if the Church dislaims her in
tention of offence, and that disclaimer Is not &C
cepted what then is her remedy 1t a brother Is
charged with giving offence, and he dlsclalms the
intention Of offence, what more can be do
Some reply to the remarks in these papers seems
called for.
l. Our article vas not a wantOu attack, or med
ding with what did not concern US. And so far as
remembered the same is true of all the papers of our
Church. It is true the Memorial laid before the
Assembly at St. Louis was By Dr. BroOkes aud two
Others aud the resolutions adopted specially relate
to them and to Others connected with the Decla-
ration and Testimony But it is also true that
the whole Southern Presbyterian Church. "Or-
ganic Union had to be brought in as usual For
example, Dr. Musgrave took the occasion to say,
"He would welcome the whole Southern Church
with open arms. " lie thought this (organic
uui0nl would soon be eOnsummated And more
to the purport This was the turn which all the
papers were trying 10 give that memorial "a the
response made IN sbe .sssphl-s 500
-, "a. aconpaagi -eta Una rtnls view ct
the case the papers Of oar Church not only had
perfect right to word respecting it, but were in
duty bound to utter that word.
> The substance Of this utterance was nothing
new, and nothing to which exception should be
taken. The memorial Of DR.. BroOkes was simply
recital Of some general principles embodied in
the Confession of Faith and Form Of Government.
The resolutions adopted by the Assembly at St.
Louis, simply declared that it approved those prin
ciples, aud IF any things had been done contrary
20 them they were null aud void. Now it is use
less to waste words upon a paper thus framed
Every one must see that it was exactly as large,
and precisely in the shape, Of piece Of chalk
When admiringly referred to by Northern papers
and speakers as if it were just the thing to settle
their whole account with the Southern Church, We
felt called upon to dissent Had not our whole
Assembly done so ia 1870? Had not this been our
uniform declaration and tone at all times2 Had
we not said all the time that these accusations we're
extremely specific, and could not be settled BY
"gHttering geueraHties, however adroitly pre-
sented? Where then is the ofense? Paul did
not think he was insisting too far when he de
manded from the jail of Phillippi that those who
had openly subjected him to specific indignities
should not settle his case except by a specific and
open act to repair them. When q Church ipsO
act0s me- contrary to all law and order it is not at
al satisfactory to be told, We did not intend to
violate any Of those dear principles Of our stan
dards, which we heartily approve A brother
has stigmatized me as q liar and seOundrel, and
then thinks the matter all adjusted by declaring
that though he did use the epithets he had no 10
tentiou in the world to give me any offence there
BY and then asks, What more can I do?" l
say, Have you taken back your outrageous accu
satiOn, Why do l not acknowledge you as a
Christian p 20, yes, a Christian who is a liar
Win you be so kind as just to take that back ?"
mo, sir, l viii not consent to any humiliating
confession" There is the plain English of it
and there is our answer to the Presbyterian Weekly
8. The Herald and PresJytey says we attribute
unworthy motives to the St. Louis Assembly in
the adoption of that paper and the Banner, re-
ierriug to as by name uses much stronger language
Now the writer had the following sentence under his
eve" When this Assembly at St. Louis said the
principles announced in the Brookes' Memorial
were such as they approved, there is not the least
room to doubt their sincerity Having said that,
we are not in the least concerned to say anything
more on that point. How could we have dis
claimed attributing unworthy motives" more ex-
plcitly?
4 It considerable part Of our last Assembly
was opposed to appointing Committee Of Confer
ence, on what ground did that opposition rest
From conviction that the Northern Assembly
was unwilling to remove the obstacles to better re-
lations. That is the plain state OF the case.
s. Ii is to be regretted that the tone Of some of
the Northern papers concerning the Conference is
becoming changed. Why is this They seem to
be disappointed about their pet scheme for organic
union. The Herald and P-esJyter discovers this
when il says in the closing sentence Of its article
that It's desire is that all true Presbyterians in this
broad land may be one 10 outward union, as we
believe they are one in spirit" We do not know
that one organization would at al promote true re
HQion. if all we're true Presbyterans" But Just
there comes the rub There are not few Pres
byterians with whom it would be anything but
comfortable to unite And how it is that we