The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-04-19
REMARKS ON DR.. DABNEYs LETTER.

This letter was received too late for inser-
ton on the first page. But rather than wait
two weeks after its appearance elsewhere, it
was Judged best to give it place on this
inside page, though necessarily to the exclu-
sion of other matter, especially the current
news from the churches. Most of the mat
ters mentioned lie rather between the writer
and DIR. Robinson. But as others come fair
" into our hands there are few observa-
tiOns suggested in reply.
l. DR.. Dabney's reference to our Assem-
bly, of 1870 He was Moderator of that AS
sembly; was in cordial sympathy with NEST
of its action, and stands heartily upon the
basis of the paper it adopted; which paper
required the Northern Assembly to set itself
right upon all questions of politics and doc
trine, where we thought it had erred. II
not, then he would have nothing to do with
them-nOt even official correspondence. Or
ganic union was not thought Of. Ga this it
may be remarked
o. That such demand for mere Ctfc5al
correspondence has never been heard of in
the history of our Church.
o. If carried out it would require nearly
every Protestant Church in the world to
stand off by itself, and refuse visible, eccle-
siastical fellowship with the others.
g. 1t was received with deep and wide,
spread dissatisfaction throughOutOur Church.
There is not shadow of doubt upon our
mind in saying that the repetition of that de-
mand would have introduced perilOus dis
cord within the bosom Of our own Church.
II. His dissatisfaction with the Baltimore
Conference. A few, We know, were diasatis-
fed because they thought it went too far in
leaving out the demand above referred to,
and standing solely upon the point of false
and dishOnoring accusations. A few others,
we also know, thought We ought to have
gone farther, and, as matter of Christian
charity, have dropped that also. We struck
the golden middle between these extremes,
and with singular unanimity the voice Of the
Church has confirmed that course. If DR..
Dabney will refresh bis memory with DR..
Palmer's admirable reply to DR. Nelson,
Central Presbyterian of Oct. IL, 1879 he
will find well. considered ground on which
ne Judged it proper to waive the demand
made in Louisville. Referring to the action
of the Northern Assembly, he says:
GAS 1 understand it, both cur Committee
at Baltimore, and our last Assembly at ST.
Louis, in its endorsement Of their action,
have waived bodily all your "deiiverances on
Loyalty and Freedom, as bar 70 tYGterRGt
relations. OF course, We know that eeolesi-
astically you never had the right TO make
them-that by the declaration of Jesus
Christ, {" My kingdom is not Of this world,
they were a6 OrlqiRe, null and void, not of
the things bound on earth, " which were also
"bound in heaven We leave them, there
fore, in your hands unbroken and untouched,
to repeal them, to modify them, or to affirm
and to glory in them, just as you please
For your own sake, and for truths sake, We
could wish you were eztrieated from this
grave error, as to the nature and functions
of the Church of God on earth. But as our
very existence as a separate Church is a
monumental protest against error, we can
afford to waive it as a bar to ecclesiastical
fellowship.
DR.. Dabney says that our separation from
the Old Church in 1861 was g an Indictment
of spiritual usurpatiOn against them, and
so continues and that he now stands "sepa-
rate simply because it is just.
We answer: o. That is good ground for
not having organic union, for then we would
be responsible for all that belongs to the or
ganization. But it does not hold good as to
mere general fraternal relations, unless the
usurpation was of such character as to pro-
claim it an apostate Church.
(2) We have as bad an opinion Of these
acts as most people smOng US; but let it be |
remembered that they wezs acts of Assem- |