The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-10-25

IQuSG HIVE ufCu NAAonS 49,
Ray. Mr.. Thomas, 81 Wytherille, said the
Church's commission Yves TO go forth, ana
BE Thought Tint as the Lord had opened the
door we should 20 and enter 1t. He Thought
All the agencies Of the Church should be
q concentrated and brought to bear on our
Young men to induce them to enter these
fields & ylfttasiSSs4 st63sfsyf 1t'f{ .' -.
Rev, Dr., kirkpatrick offered an amend.
n1er,ts to the resolution to the effect that
EcorI1,uitfee OF seven be appointed to. take
into Reconsideration the whole spiritual con.
iitiop and wants of the colored people, anu
to report to the next 1ynod. - VS. -
!, This amendment and the whole: resoiu-
tions W ere then adopted unanimously.
i3a.%t ! GENITAL PRESBYTERIAN.
t.. The following resolutions, submitted Dy
Rev. Theodorick Pryor, ID, on the Sec
ond day of the Synod, were then taken up:
|. whereas several Synods have recommend
ed the religious journals published Witnln
their bounds, thus throwing around tnem
the influence of synodical appreciation; ana
whereas the Central Presbyterian is, ana
has been for the last sixteen years, pub
lished within the bounds OF this Synod, un,
sustained by the expression Oh synooicai
recommendation therefore be 1t
- Resolued, /. That this Synod does most
CORDIALLY recommend the Central IreSbyte.
RAN as in its Judgment religious journal
eminensly adapted to promote the rehsious
information and spiritual edifcation OF all
who read it with due care and diligence.
Resoiued, 9. That the Synod earnestly
recommends to the members OF the churches
under its care to take the Central fTeSoy1e-
riun. it being, in, the judgment OF the
synod. "A sound; iudicious, and ably-con-
mi. David Comfort said that no one holds
in higher estimation this paper than him.
self, and that heyery seldom dissented from
|. the opinions expressed by the edltor, ana
vet he thought the nearer we kept 10 our
| legitimate work the less likely we were TO
get into trouble. The Central PTesoyteraon
did not need this support. Let eac& paper
stand on its own merit.
DIR. Smith said as to the power OF Synod,
Fit had in 1870 recommended Hampden-
Sidney. College IN more explicit terms.
| The SYNOD had frequently commend d pa
| pers before. The General Assembly, Synods,
and Presbyteries frequently made deliver
| ances beyond mere spiritual concerns.
We settle the secular matters OF publication
and OF our theological seminaries. Ii the
Central is secular, so are they. Ii the
president OF Hampden-Sidney College can
be sustained, why cannot another ordained
minister belonging to your own Synod, ana
publishing the only paper OF the kind within
your bounds, and deyoting his whole time to
The support and defence OF the principles
which you hold? This is the rival OF no
paper. II it were my own case, and my
work could not be recommended, then l
would certainly quit it.
Rev. DR.. Bullock said his first purpose
was to vote against the paper, not because
he underestimate the Importance OF the
object aimed at or the value OF the Contra!
PRESBYTERIAN, but on other grounds. Now,
however, he intended to vote for it. He did
not, of course, agree with all OF DR.. Browns
views. He might raise various objections.
! There was the Revised Booic for one thing.
Again, the Central did not go quite as far
as he did for stfraternal relations" And
some thought he was not as careful to pay
compliments around to his brethren as would
be agreeable to many OF them, &C., &c. But
what OF that? Suppose he does sometimes
nut me out of temper because don't agree
with him. Is it the chief end OF an editor
to pliantly please everybody? We know
we can trust him as true and tried man !;
and know the opinions OF that paper on
Church questions are more regarded among
Northern Presbyterians than those OF any
other paper in our connection. Or. Bull
lock sustained this by quoting remarks he
had heard from this source.)
Mr.. Blakey, of Charlottesville, thought the
Synod had the power to pass these resolu-
tions. Suppose all our people were taking
| some heretical paper, would the Synod not
have power to advise against itp And il
so, has it not the power to recommend a
good paper? It has been argued that we
should not endorse the paper because we do
not know what the paper may advocate
within the next year. Neither do we know
| what the Publication Committee will issue
within the year; but do not we trust and
endorse them? And so cannot we endorse
the Central Presbyterian, which in the past
has been true to all our principles? The
Central Presbyterian has been power in
our Synod, and power for good. 1t has
been leader in our conflicts, and has never
lost victory.
Governor j. L. Marye said he was sur
prised that there was a shadow Of opposition
to these resolutions. He would 60 still fur
Their, and advocate resolution calling
| on our pastors to commend it to the peo-
pie. Talk about secularity, he never saw q
cleaner paper; and its editor had lost hun
dreds OF dollars because he steadfastly re-
| fused to insert advertisements with which
many other papers abound. We cannot get
along without this weekly paper. Is the
Synod prepared for this state OF things
that paper conducted with distinguished
ability, by an amiable, beloved, approved
member of this body, as strictly religious in
its character as any paper he ever saw, and
the only paper published within our
bounds, Is still q journal which it is not
proper for us to recommend to our people
He protested, against any such doctrine.
constitutional right to pass these resolu-
tons; and.lreplied to the argument Of DR..
Peck that we cannot tell what the paper may
be in the future. We endorse it, he said, as
we do every minister in our connection
from our knowledge OF the past and Of the
present II its character is changed so as
to become unworthy of endorsation it will
be in the power OF the Synod to withdraw
| its approval. l.o5.. ~ ,..,l .s:4sess
Rev. Mr.. Woods said the question was
not as to the ability of the editor nor the
soundness Of, the paper, but whether the
Synod Of Virginia would be doing right in
discriminating in favor OF one religious
paper as against another. he did not think
it proper. it is asked is not this the only
paper published within our bounds This is
mere quibble.3 The Christian Observer and
other papers also circulate within our bounds.
THERE'S no analogy between the Publiea-
ton Committee and this paper. That COM
mittee is an arm OF the Church, and is anne
nable to the Assembly. DR.. Brown is not
amenable to the Synod. al s. ~.
DR.. Pryor asked il DR.. Brown was not