The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-11-22
(From the Herald and Presbyter)
Why Not Make 1t Plain ?''


Central Presbyterian of Richmond, by Rev. DR..
more satisfactory In regard to our action on
fraternal relations at Springfield. The writer
has a reputation for candor and fairness, and is
widely known We would be glad to relieve
him if it were in our power. He says:
Declarations simply of loyalty to the govern
ment of the United States, or condemnation of
what the North considered rebellion, we do not
ask should be changed. But if they contain I'M
putations rejecting upon the Christian honor of
the Southern Assembly, that aspect of them we
ask should be disavowed just as much as in re-
gard to "heresy, schism, and blasphemy." This
was our POSITION from the Baltimore Conference
on, and 1t was the understanding in the Atlanta
Assembly. Now, why do Northern Presbyte-
rian papers so uniformly and persistently shun
this Point2 1t is the turning point of the whole
matter. When they say their Assembly ad
heres to its political declarations do they under
stand it as adhering only to the sentiments of
loyalty or to offensive imputations also wrapped
up IN them few plain words on that pre-
else point would settle the whole trouble
DR.. Browns solicitude, as we suppose, is
chiefly for Others forasmuch as he has ccm-
mitted himself in favor of putting the interpre-
tation on our Assembly's action as being what
the st. Louis Presbyterian quotes DIR. Brown,
and says
He wishes the Northern brethren to put it
beyond the possibility of controversy that they
have withdrawn ALL imputations upon our
Church. We believe that they have done so.
In view of the fact that many in the South
ern Church desire more light, he asks the
papers of our Church to speak out and make
it plain" He says:
When our Northern friends say that their
Assembly adheres to its political declarations
do they understand it as adherlng only to the
sentiments OF loyalty or to offensive imputations
also wrapped up in them?'
plain 2 What says DR.. Herrick johnson {?
What says Judge Moore What says the In
terror the Herald and Pres6yter, the Presbvtc-
ran Banner, the Presbyterian, the Presbyteriaa
Jo'rnGL the Occident. the Presbyterian O5serl-
er, and the EUangcljStf Gentlemen, can YOU
afford to be silent? The Presbytery of Balti-
more, In your connection, has lust declared that
the concurrent resolution" withdraws ALL in
putatons without reservation" Is this your
Interpretation
Now, 1t occurs to us that Dr. Brown and the
editor of the st. Louis Presbyterian award too
much authority and influence to the press of our
Church. However that may be, our papers, as
we are sure, have spoken, and in every case
giving the Interpretation of our action in ac-
cordance with the views that are satisfactory to
those who desire few more plain words -"
If anything has appeared in the papers of our
Church that was polemic 1t has seemed to us to
have been in answer to tn lse who are opposers
OF traternal relations, and who in support of
their views, have revived the old CHARGES
This has not been criticised by us, and on the
contrary, we have said in our columns that
Drs. Dabney and Palmer could not give their
reasons against fratei nal relation, without re-
ferrlng to the past in terms of censure upop our
Church. There has been so much. however in
the same line that we began to despair. Tie
prospect looks better since the action of the
Southern Presbyteries, and we are encouraged
to do what we can to give light when asked for
The action of the Presbytery of Baltimore
referred to by the St. Louis Presbvte,ian
expresses, as we believe, what all in our Church
hold, and what the Springfield action means
and indeed, what it said Dr. Johnson's resolr-
tion was not meant to reserve and keen in force
the imputatons upon the Southern Assembly
and Church in our action on loyalty and re-
bellion for in the nautatis n,utandis part of our
action we declare our regret for and with
drawal of all expressions of our Assembly which
may be regarded as rejecting upon and offensive
to" our Southern brethren. This must include
all such things as may be in our loyalty and
rebellion action, if there be such in it, and it Is
a fact that there are such imputatons in it. We
might have said during the war all that we
have held in regard to 10y atty and rebellion
without reference to the Southern Church. but
we did not. So far as we did not keen our ac
tion free from imputatons, we say we regret
and withdraw Our preliminary resolution
does not modify, but only explains as our Az
sembly declares Explains what2 It gives our
meaning or exempli6cation Of the phrase in the
Dutatis mutandis action, viz While recedinp
from no principle" If the action Of the South
ern Assembly had included what we give in
parentheses, viz While receding from no
principle Especially our views Of the non-polit-
ical character OF the Church, we do hereby
declare our regret for and withdrawal of all ex-
Pressions," ETC.. proper Interpretation Of the
action would have implied as complete with
drawal Of imputations as if no principle adhered
to had been specified This answer to the st.
Louis editor and DR.. Brown we hope will be