The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-09-15
The Southern Presbyterian Review on
the Report of the Majority of the
Committee on Retrenchment.

ne SOuCneIn FreSOyCer1an REVIEW on
the Report of the Majority of the
Committee on Retrenchment.
CHARLEsTowN, w. VA, Sept: 9th, 80.
Messrs. Editors,-ZHe Southern Pres
6yterlan RevieaO for July contains an ar
ticle on "The Assembly of $780, which
misconstrues and misrepresents the re-
port of the majority of the committee on
Retrenchment. 1t says, on page $40,
Secondly, the majority suggest that our
present system is fundamentally the same
as the old system of Boards. This GER
tainly is not correct statement. -
Through several pages the position i'm
the names of Drs. Thornwell and Breck-
inridge; and then on page 514 the article
says, But we cannot close this long ex-
cursus into which; by their substantial
identification of our present system with
that of the old Boards, the majority re-
port on Retrenchment has led us, with
out repeating that any such statement is
and must be incorrect.
AS soon as possible after reading the
article, l called the authors attention to
the error, into which l supposed some
newspaper report of the majority report
had led him, and to the injury which his
charge would lnfict upon the report. L,
however, failed to convince him that he
was mistaken, and have no recourse left
me as the writer and friend of the major
ity report, but to appeal from the iudg-
ment of the author of that article to that
of the Church.
The only question between that author
ha -,
fairly construed, suggest and statef the
substantial Identification of our present
system with that of the old Boards?>" He
afirms; I deny.
In vindication of my denial l quote
T from the report all that it contains which
can furnish possible foundation for the
charge against it
"2nd. The test of long usage has en-
abled the Church to understand the plan
to eliminate what was weak, and to pre-.
serve whatever was most durable anc
strongest and best
3rd. Your Executive Committees are
elected by the Assembly every year, and
all their accounts, their books, and theil
proceedings are inspected by the Assem-
bly,. Their accountability therefore il
direct, frequent, and easy"
Again as one of the Reasons,
a.. Your plan is the result of the Pres.
byterian Church's experiment for nearly
one hundred years. It's present form is
the outgrowth of the Church's experience
and observation through nearly a cen
tury's development of her order, power
vocation, and work, and as such was
adopted By our first Assembly at Augsl8to
IN 1861.
1t was not the object Of any part O
the majority report to institute specific
comparison of our system with that of the
old Boards. 1t was unnecessary. But
in the above quotations which the author
{ of the RevieaO's article claims as Justify.
ing his charge, our report mentions fea,
lures of our system which differentiate il
sufficiently from that of the old Boards
True, we might have stated the differ
ences between the two systems more
fully-some may possible think that il
should have been done-but it seemed tc
me, and, presume, to my colleagues who
signed the report, unnecessary and i'm
pertinent to our business The question
Of the Boards, the great names Of Thorn
well and Breckinridge, and especially thc
famous Rochester debate were all dis
tlnctly present to my mind when draw
ing this part Of our report, and chose to
accept the results of the labors of these
men rather than 60 with them again over
the much trodden grounds on which that
question rested or was agitated. 1t did
not seem to me too great draft upon the
intelligence Of the Church, and particu-
larly the Assembly, to assume that ali
were acquainted with the difference be-
tween the present system Of Committees
and that of the old Boards. Yet in treat
ment Of the present system enough is said
to show, under any fair canon Of inter
probation, that the majority did not iden-
tify the two systems
Further, if the majority report sub
stantially identifies our present system
with that Of the old Boards, it is some
what remarkable that Rev. S. TAYLOR
Martin (who that article says is " as keen
in debate as he is courteous and Rev.