The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-11-01
THE CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS NEWS
PAPERS.


report of the proceedings of the Synod OF
Virginia. This report was prepared Tor
the Richmond Dispatch by member OF the
Synod, and gives fair outline of discus
sion which extended through nearly three
hours, and others desired much to partici-
pate if time had permitted. 1t Med hardly
be stated that the editor of this paper had no
agency in the introduction of the sub
ject, though informed beforehand that 1t
would be brought up by others. 1t Is not
without much hesitation this debate Is trans
ferred to our columns. It has always been,
to our view, as gross an offence against mod
esty for an editor to parade before the pub
lie the AatteriDg letters received from sub
scribers, as it would be for pastor to read
or quote from the pulpit such epistleS or re-
marks of commentator, judicious or upJu
dicious, as he may receive from. his friends
in the congregation. Certainly no editor
should be insensible to the good opinion OF
his fellows; but why should he nauseate the
good taste of his brethren by faring an ex
preston of it before the public eye? But
publication of this whole discussion could not
be avoided, without the risk of various dam
aging surmises and demonstrations. There
fore we give it all. There are some things
which the party most deeply interested might
have more suitably expressed in the presence
of the Synod, and after its action had been
consummated; but all must agree that half
past eleven o'clock Saturday night was not
the time for it. So then, as our dear breth'
rem had it all to themselves in Norfolk, they
will now allow an editor little indulgence
in the privileges of his tripod. And
1. Many thanks are due to brethren for
their forbearance and kindness. Not an IN
kind word was uttered by any one. During
these sixteen years past there have been
"great earthquakes in divers places; distress
of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the
waves roaring; mems hearts failing them for
fear, and for looking after those things which
were coming on the earth" 1t has been a
time of profound agitation both in Church
and State. Exciting questions of the gravest
import have been before our Church. To
expect universal agreement with opinions
advocated by any editoc-nay, to suppose he
can avoid giving offence to some, ia to expect
sight never seen upon earth. He himself
is not heavenly angel, nor does he send his
paper to celestials. To some the gentlest
declining to publish an article, and for the
best of reasons, or mere difference of opin-
ion, is a mortal offence. Perhaps they can
hardly help it, being, in sense, " fcreor-
dained of old to that condemnation of finding
fault with editors" But if we have in this
or other ways grieved any such, it is hoped
and believed the number is very small. II
any such were present at the Synod, they
were kind and forbearing in not taking 80
good an occasion to avenge their wrongs.
Ga the contrary enough commentator was
expressed Doth reported and ubreported] to
make any man humble all his life.
The objections urged against the paper in
troduced were two:
a. That this is secular matter with
which an ecclesiastical court has nothing
to do.
The answer to this was forcibly and con-
clusively presented upon the floor of the
Synod, but it may be still further enforced
by few facts and arguments. One fact is
that when Drs. Hoge and Moore became ed
itorS of the Central Presbyterian in 1855, it
was not only under a very special sanction Of
the Synod, but under its express and emphatic
request. Another is that there has probably
never been a religious periodical published in
the service of the Church by member of
our Synod, which did not receive, and many
of them repeatedly, this kind of public rec
ognition. And such has been the case gen.
orally, if not universally, in our other Syn
DDS. These and analogous facts might be
brought forward almost without number
The opposition, therefore, to the recommen-
dstion here proposed was contrary to the
whole current of our Presbyterian history in
this regard.
But it was argued that as the paper is
private property, the Synod should have moth
log to do with it. With great respect We
submit that this is unsound, if not sophistical.
Take a parallel case: Here is pastor or
evangelist who owns house, perhaps a
farm) library, horse, &c. They are to a
large extent the means of his maintenance
and the instruments of his work. What
would be thought of Church court which
should refuse to recognize his wOrk, because
the means by which it was sustained, were
in whole or in part his private property?
The vital point in the whole matter is this:
Nearly all our religious newspapers are edit
ed by ordained ministers. 1t is 80 with the
Central Presbyterian. Our ordination VOWS
are just as sacred as those of pastors; and
as sacred as they were when the call to this
work found us, after the labors of quarter
of century, among united and attached
people. If We are now engaged in work
which, though spread all over the Synod,
is such that this venerable body, whether
because of its own spirituality or our want of
it, could not conscientiouSly recognize, then
we ought to get out of it as soon as possible.
Certainly if such had been the conclusion of