The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-04-19

LETTER FROM THE REV. DR.. DABNE
UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY Va,
1Q-E
DR.. Stuart Robinson

lays this letter; in which speak first as an editor
Of the Southern Presbyterian ReU'eio, to your
charge of improperly in its admitting an article
against our joining the proposed Alliance; and Sc
cond as writer of that article, to the merits of the
question ITSELF
On the first point Dr. Woodrow has left me lit
tie to add. Had the carping New York editor
read, and had the editors Of the Observer condo
sceDded to publish, our card, as printed on every
cover of the ReUiet9 they would never have made
the blunder which has dscomposed you. When
we say that our Association makes itself respon
sible for the work, we obviously do not assume
an obligation Just expressly repudisted we leave
to each author the responsibility of his opinions;
we only mean that wy are responsible" to per
form the drudgery necessary to keep journal
ahoat.
We fattered ourselves that neither you nor the
Christian Observer would misconceive or oppose
this conception of fire i>urual. For we know
that the Observer glories in this very character
with the consequent liberty of discussion for its COD
trbutors, and responsibility as to the opinions
for itself. Some years ago, for instance, the O6
serrer, on this claim, printed grave anonymous
charges against an Assembly's Committee. Ire.
fer to this, not to blame it, but to Justify my mider
case by the example. Some years ago, you headed
an editorial association, LOT the Critic whose plan
IN this particular was the same as ours and you
will recall at least one case, in which you printed
in the Critic, from one member Of the association,
what SO aggrieved another, that he replied in
weekly journal, as you are now doing Our edi.
tors, in its recent publication, followed good pre-.
cedents.
But my argument against our entering this ALI
ance was anonymous" Surely you should have
noticed that all tie RtUaa0 articles Anonymous
and this by rule deliberately adopted by the edi.
tors, not to print any names unless expressly de-
sired Here is the whole history Of that scarecrow.
Now, at least will dispose of this charge, by au-
thorzng you to inform all Of my traterna accusers
in the North that nobody is responsible for the ar
guments. STYLE temper, and faults of that article
save my humble self. You will find those who
agree with my conclusion vastly more formidable
than my poor article Thus far speak as 90 editor
of the Rerieo
Second As to the merits of the article itself,
you seem to think it unbandsome, if not indecent,
for nae to debate an action the Assembly has al
ready taken reply, lst The action which the
Assembly of 1875, under your lead, has taken, is
but tentative, not final. | reply, I'd have only
initiated you. The Assembly of 1874 took more
definite and unanimous action, declining the ALI
ance. You nevertheless questioned and reversed
that action in 1875; so that do less than your
example warrants.
You think our relations with the Northern
Church were admirably settled by our able Com.
miSsioners to the Baltimore Conference You re-
mark that this question has been perplexDg and
delicate one much imperilliDg the concord of our
Church. Hence, when it had received so happy a
solution at Baltimore, and all among us were well
satisfied, you think it almost criminal in me TO un-
settle it by my article. Bat can say, with Elijah,
am not he that troubleth Israel" | was not
satisfied with that settlement. 1t was plain to NE,
that We had forsaken part Of our sJrong position
against our sccusers, and a part Of our righteous
testimony for our Lord. But said not one word
not even in the bosom of my family. When the
Assembly Of 1875, amidstits opening acts, accepted
that settlement with eulogy of the Commissioners,
did not "mutter or peep" But soon after that
&C justment was reached, which you say was so hap
py, you and your friends moved the Assembly to
unsettle it, to retouch its ticklish posture by rails
ing the claims Of this Alliance which venerable
Assembly had just declined as distasteful to the
probable majority of our people, and which your
ablest and wises friends mpOred you not to press.
You see my dear brother, that it was you, and not
|, who disturbed that settlement which you so
much admired land did not by thruSting back
on us this question Of relations oih the same par
ties, under new shape. My little essay was but
an humble attempt to maintain the adjustment
you think so well of.
A word more Did the Assembly of 1870, or the
Baltimore Conference, place our Church Alright be-
fore the accusers This question bears closely on
that of the Alliance. Our Commissioners required,
in order to fraterna relations only that the North
ern Church should disclaim their ISLANDERS; not
that they should disavow their terrible usurpations
against liberty OF conscience. The Assembly Of
1870 REQUIRED both. 1--WE believe it to be SOL
EMMY incumbent on the Northern Presbyterian
Church, not with reference to us, but before the
Christian world, before our divine Master and
King, to purge itself of this error and by public
proclamation of the truth, to place the crown once
more upon the head of Jesus Christ, as the alone
King in Zion. In default of which, the Southern
Presbyterian Church, which has already suffered
much in maintaining the spirituality and indepen-
dence of the Redeemer's kingdom upon the earth,
feels constrained to bear public testimony against
this detection of our late associates from the truth
Nor can we, by official correspondence even, COZ
sent to blunt the edge Of this our testimony con-
corning the very nature and mission of the Church,
as purely spiritual body among men."
These noble and truthful words of that Assem-
bly, were sfterwards published, and Noo stand, by
order of the assembly, as the DISTINCTIVE PRIN-
CIPLEs of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States" On them stand. When our Commits
sioners forsook their impregnabe position, fore
saw the retort to which We now laid open; IF
the Northern Church must, in order TO fraternal
relations, apologize for an accusing charge against
the Southern, then Of course the latter must apol-
opize for its accusation against the Northern. -
Now, is it reply to this bubble, to say The
Southern Assembly in its indictment did not 8aae
the Northern? If our secession from them in
1861 was justifabe, it was an indictment of spirit
ua usurpation against them; our continued sepa
ration is our continued indictment. | stand Sepa.
rate simply because the indictment is just. Again
plead the righteous precedent of our fathers in
1888. They took precisely the ground of the As
sembly of 1870, when compelled by errors of doc
trpe and order, to separate from the Northern
New School: that they could not, by official cor
even, blunt the edge of this testi.
mony. They would not, in lS46, hold joint com.
munion with the New SChsol Assembly sitting near
them in philadelphia When the Scotch and
Irish Churches made the correspondence By etter