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

AAAsAA WtlOA @A~NN9 NASAS
many cases, be no intercourse between the
separated bodies ''whiie the world Standerh;
and that, perhaps, is just what would best
suit the views of our brother. Others think
far differently. We would not allow the
Northern Assembly to bind yoke of bond
age upon the necks of our people; we in
stantly broke it asunder, by separating from
them. Those acts have now no power over US.
But much as that Church has sinned against
US and against the truth, it embOdies at this
day large part of the best people and best
Presbyterians on the face of the earth; it
has never embodied in its standards any
error, but keeps them in their integrity
Now shall we stand apart forever, not haV-
ing any Christian civilities between us, until
all those wrongs are righted? We say, God
forbid. Upon that idea the gospel of for
giveness and charity would do little indeed
for this world of discord. Where then does
our Church take its stand? Right here
1t SAYS in substance "Those acts were ut
terly and grievOusly wrong; sin against
Christ, his Church and US We were obliged
to separate and place our people beyond
their operation. We have done so: We have
recorded our protest and cur testimony
We cannot occupy the same house with them !;
but we still desire to live on friendly terms
as neighbOrs." Those expressions are on a
different footing from their accusations
If am in controversy with man and re-
ceive some bodily injury in the conflict, that
may be readily overlooked when we come to
the question about better relations. But if
he has proclaimed me liar and every thing
else that is mean, and now refuses to retract,
or perhaps reasserts the SANDER, there is a
totally different case. Fraternal relations
are simply impossible. Thus precisely does
it stand between us and the Northern Church;
and in resting the whole case just where it
is, we have put ourselves right before God
and his whole Church, and our adveraaries,
by refusing to remove their enormous SLAM
der, fairly and fully, are bearing load OF
odium which fills many in that Church with
shame. ImputatiOns upon Christian char
acter are perpetual offence until retracted'
There is the distinction.
5. DR.. Dabney appeals to the course OF
our fathers in 1888, and then in 1916. On
this we remark:
a. The separation of 1888, was on
question of constitutional law, viz: dissolv.
ing four SynOds on the ground of their haV-
ing never been rightly constituted.
o. The refusal to "hold joint cOmmun'
ion in 1885," was upon no such ground al
all as DR.. Dsbney asserts. Let US here
allow those fathers to speak for themselves
In most courteous manner they say that
while this Assembly recognizes the above
mentioned body as branch of the Church
of our common Lord, and for this reason
would as individuals, under appropriate CIR
oumstanees, unite with our brethren in the
celebration of divine ordinances, yet, as this
Assembly has never in its corporate or ofi'
cia capacity united with any other ecclesi-
astical body in celebrating the Lords Sup.
per, it Judges it inexpedient to institute a
new usage at this time" (Baird'S Digest p.
1887 DR.. Dabney is correct in saying they
declined the joint communion; but is en-
tirely wrong as to the reason, aud therefore
that prop fails him.
6. DR.. Dabney says that in attempting to
uphold our consistency we "are betrayed
into arguments which if they prove anything
prove that we should go into direct relations
with that Assembly"
We have tried to show, heretofore, that,
because we have a controversy directly with
that Northern Assembly, it by no means fol-
| lows that our representatives cannot, without
compromise of principle, meet their repre-
sentatives elsewhere. They do meet them,
as in the Cumberland General Assembly,
and the General Synod of the Dutch Church.
There is no inconsistency in this. Bot we
turn the point upon the Objector himself. If
the Northern Presbyterian Church is so cor
rupt and obnoxious to US that we cannot
meet its representatives consistently il the
Confere, ces of this Alliance, how is it that
our delegates are sent where they meet them
in other bodies already mentioned?
Moreover let him read what he has said
about the " tendencies of Northern and Brit
ish Presbyterian Churches" and our duty
to have no closer utilization with them"
No closer" If the conclusion is worth
anything it ought to 90 further: We should
have nothing whatever to do With them. But
to some of these British Presbyterisns, and es-
pecially the one he probably thinks the
worst, the Free Church of Scotlacd to which
Drs. Guthrie and Candlish belonged we
have actually sent corresponding delegates,
and they to u.s. What does he say to that ?
Not a word lie tells US Of his readiness to
hold personal and ministerial intercourse
with such persons as he likes. All very
well; but when it comes to this point of &C.
clesiastical fellowship, there our brother
makes dodge. If it is all right and con-
sisteDt for our Assembly to send delegates
to the Free Church of Scotland itself, will
he tell us how it becomes so wrong and dan
gerous to meet it's delegates in this Presby-