The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-03-22

.escison or erasure. Iadeed, this writer asserts
page 79):
The advocates of the measure 1.-THE Allisnce) mis-
represent the true position OF our church.. Iney
now say that the Popish usurpation and violation
If the constitution, committed by the Northern
Church, would be no just barrier to fraternal cor
-espondeuce, if thew would only retract their SLAM
lers against us. This IS not phat our Assembly OF
1870 said.
l answer: no matter, as to the present issue,
what the Assembly of 1870 said this is what the
Assembly of 1874 and the Baltimore Conference
and the Assembly of 1875 sad and it is this writer
not the advocates of the Alliance, who grossly mis-
represents the position of our Church. The mat
ter of correspondence came before the Assembly
of 1870, avowedy as Q first step toward organic
union, and when the reunion" enthusiasm was
rampant at the North, and endangering the stead.
fastness of our own people. Treating it as such,
the Assembly of 1870 took action showing that or
ganc union was impossible, for it involved taking
back our testimony. Once that was settled, and
the propositions of the Northern Assemblies of 1873
and 1874 came before our Assembly they present
ed altogether a different question, and we're an.
swered accordingly by the Assembly of 1874
Those who sympathize with this writer fought Wig
orously, and predicted as many dreadful results
from the Baltimore Conference as they now pre-.
dict concerning the Alliance, and their predictions
are entitled to about equal credence in both cases.
1t is this writer who misrepresents the position Of
the Church when he puts-it in the ridiculous A.
tude of hectoring the Northern Church, and de-
manding of it "a return to the sacred principles OF
the constitution, not before we can enter into
organic union with them, and put ourselves into
their power,-but before we can with respect
for truth or ourselves, enter into aternal relations
10Th them!!" (See page 49,
OF the same character is the writer's misrepre.
sensations of our position and spirit toward the
British Churches. He sets out with expressing
his astonishment that the advocates Of the Alliance
are so oblivious of that fact, that advances from
US were repelled By the vey people with whom they
are now invited to associate" This is certainly q
rather free translation of the fact that in 1885,
during the reign of the war spirit, DR.. Hoge was
informed by friend in Britain, that violent
American partizan in the Free Church threatened
to raise question on the reception of our dele
gates by the Free Church Assembly, ia view OF
which our delegates declined going to be made the
writer's full translation of the fact, it only proves
that the advocates of the Alliance are not the only
parties obnoxious to the charge of ohtuseness to
the sense of honor and self respect. FOR the As.
sembly of 1874, which those of the wri!er's views
dominated" which refused the Alliance as the
scheme then stood, was equally obvious. For
that Assembly received with pleasure the COM
municatioD from the delegates of the Free Church
OF Scotland, expressed the profound and a6ec-
Tomato regard which we entertain for the Free
Church of Scotland" and still more, appointed
the Rev. John Leyburn, ID D., and Rev. James
Woodrow, d. D.. to visit the ecclesiastical bodies
which have proposed correspondence with US, and
appointed them our delegates, to bear to them our
Christian salutations Was the writer oblivious
of this astonishing conduct of the Assembly Of
1874? (See Minutes of 1874, PIP. SIS and sic
The fallacy runs through the whole Of this pa.
per that it is the duty Of our Church previous to
any sort Of fellowship to sit in judgment on the
soundness in the faith of other Churches holding
our standards, especially on the point of the spir
ituality and independence Of the Church and free.
dom from the faint of "a truculent in6del aboli-
tionism." And that in face of the fact that we
not only correspond, but cooperate with the Re
formed Dutch Church. which Judging from the
tone of the Intellgencer during the war; is fully
as largely tainted with what this writer terms in
6de abolitionism, as the Northern Churches the
fact, also, that we correspond with the Cumber.
land Presbyterian body, Notwithstanding its Armin.
iansm and the fact that our ministers interchange
pulpits, and missionary agents confer together with
those of the Northern Churches in regard 10 the
great work. And still more remarkable is the
writer's conception that dignity and self.respect
and faithfulness to our testimony, should lead us
to refuse conference and co operation with the en-
tire forty or fifty Presbyterian bodies of the world
because one body Of the fifty would be there with
whom we have quarrel. He labors hard to con
struct a very rickety analogy out Of dinner invi
tation, to which two hostile parties are invited
But it is a hamlet play with no Hamlet in it since
in the case of the London Conference, there was
no host to assume the patronizing part, and no
guests of amy body, but only independent ctiz ,ns
in public meeting. Indeed, the germinal absurd
ty of this whole paper is its assumption that, in
this proposal of alliance, somebody, as head, in.
vites everybody else to come to his house and en-
joy something that he has gotten up for their ben
eft, instead of seeing that it is spontaneous gath.
erng OF equals in nobody's private house, but in
the public square. Hence, his novel idea of Ell.
quette that because we cannot honorably 70 into
the Northern Assembly's house, we cannot honor
ably 90 into any crowd where the Northern AS.
sembly is.
word as to the writer's charge that the As.
sembly of 1875 was betrayed into" this alliance,
the more because others have asserted that
there was no time given for discussion, but hasty
action and others that it should have been refer.
red to the Presbyteries This last complaint comes
with an ill grace from the opponents Of alliance
who got the Assembly Of 1874 to decide peremp.
torily on the question without reference to the
Presbyteries. Ii the Assembly Of 1874 was com.
petent to decide without consulting the Presby
teries, was not the Assembly of 1875 equally CON-
petent to decide in favor OF the scheme in the new
phase in which it was presented, without consult
ing the Presbyteries2 Why did not the opponents
Of alliance think of the Presbyteries while there
was time? There was no time after the Assem-
bly, of 1875. To postpone then was to refuse for
he conference was to occur in London in little
more than month. Those who favored the ALI.
.nce did not want to be Invited in" and voted
lpon. They chose to 60 in on equal terms, while
he door was open to all the world, or not at all.
And if there was lack of time for discussion 10
he Assembly Of 1875, the opponents of the meas.
Ire were responsible for it. The very overture
prayed for action early in the session that there
night be ample time for consideration; and the
riends of the overture pressed for early action
Mo chairman nf the Com mttee into 10 oso he ndo