The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-07-04
For THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
DIVISION OF THE SYNOD OF VIRGINIA.

In the Central of May 30th, there is quite
a vigorous assault upon the memorial of
Montgomery Presbytery for division of our
Synod. This article is, l am glad to say, in
temper excellent, and forbodeS pleasant
and fraternal discussion of this veging SUBJ
ject l had hoped the ventilation of this
question would be reserved for the floor of
Synod, but perhaps it is best to have full
expression of opinion through the press, and
as some are resolved to "Open their mouths
boldly" and it is a foregone conclusion that
our Synod is to be again agitated, l propose
to contribute my mite toward the storm.
There are two preliminary remarks sug-
gested by the article of 7. a. Let it be
understood that every body on both sides and
the rest of mankind who know anything of
our Synod, comedies that it is venerable, in
fact very venerable, and more; that it is ga
noble body of cultivated and refined Chris
tan gentlemen" and further, that for "grav-
ity, dignity, decOrum and Christian court
esy," and of course exilirating influence"
it is not excelled, perhaps not equalled by
any deliberative body on earth. We intend
no outrage upon the reverential affection of
our brethren, and will permit no one to i'm
peach our love and admiration for this grand
old Synod, and we Indignantly repel' the
charge once intimated by our marvellous and
lamented Bocock, that we are castirOn men.
Surely now this will do for sentiment and
Danish from the discussion of this practical
subject all grandiloquent and verbal adora
ton, and leave US free to dispassionately
consider what is best for the kingdom and
glory of Christ.
e. This matter was not finally disposed
of at Fredericksburg. Why this reviewer
hoped it was We cannot imagine. An indu.
entail constituent Of the question then was
the portentous state Of the country. Many
who under other circumstances would have
favored a division, then from patriotic mo.
tives urged delay. No one who was present
at Harrisonburg, will ever forget the nervous
defamation of the Moderator upon the po-
litiCal aspect of the question, and his happy
and thrilling comparison of Virginia to the
fixed stars, on that memorable night when
old and young were smitten by the falling
stars with dread and fear of the convulsions
of the last day. No such consideration to.
day affects the question. Again think L
state fact when say that the refusal of
the Synod to overture the Assembly for a
division, was due largely to the timely remark
of Rev. John Miller, acquiesced in on all
sides, that if any cluster of Presbyteries
should thereafter desire to be constituted into
a new Synod, no opposition would be made.
The whole matter vas virtually remitted to
the Presbyteries, and Montgomery Presby-
terry in her memorial, and two other Presby-
teries in the appointment of committees OF
correspondence, are but following out this
programme.
And now for the first reason for division
assigned in the memorial and criticised by
7. If there is any exaggeration here, as he
delicately intimates, it is not in the memorial
but his faulty quotation. That paper does
not say that the Synod is "too large to either
expeditiously or wisely" transact business
but as expeditiouSly or wisely as des'rable
1t is not an extreme but very cautious and
moderate criticism of the promptness and
wisdom of this venerable court. Is the charge
true? Is the Synod of Virginia infallible
and its action always characterized by such
promptnesS and wisdom as we could wish 3
Does it always give that deliberate consider
alton which the business merits, and are moi
it's judgments sometimes only the nomina
conclusions of the body, and thus "too often
not a7ways, robbed of influence" These
questions cannot be argued. We make on'
appeal to the conviction and observation o
, its members, Is it an "upjust reproach upor