The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-06-28


modify the concurrent resolutions adopted by
your Assembly and ours, we are prepared to
send delegates forthwith
We received a reply, the only material
part of which was this
The action referred to does not modify, but
explains the concurrent resolutions. and the ex
PLANTATION is on the face of the action There
is nothing behind it, nor between the lines"
But the question here was this-What
does the explanation include? Those
declarations concerning loyalty and re-
belllon' embraced some of the most Of
fensive imputations upon us. But there
were controlling considerations which led
us to conclude that they intended only to
reserve to themselves the principle in
volved in those declarations For % it
is not to be for moment believed, ex-
cept upon the most decisive evidence to
the contrary, that any such body of meh
would declare in the face of the whole
world that they were quite prepared to
retract all aspersions concerning "heresy,
schism, and blasphemy," but reserved to
themselves the right, immunities, privi-
lege, and enjoyment of holding on, as
Church of Christ, to all their imputations
upon us touching loyalty" etc. (2) This
is the only reasonable solution of the APP
parently strange fact that they purposeIy
withheld from us that explanatory reso-
luton. The supposition that they under
stood it to signify a reservation not of
the principle only in their declarations
touching loyalty, but of the offensive re-
Elections upon our character contained
therein, would be TO cover them with an
indelible turpitude. (3) That this reso-
luton referred merely to their principles
is confirmed by what We now find as to
the tenor of their debate. If it had been
understood otherwise it could not hare
met aOith q unanimous cote, as any one
may see who will read the noble speech
of Judge Moore, of Chicago, and others.
(4) The NelO York Observer, whose senior
editor was member of that Assembly,
and who moved the adoption of the re-
port of their committee, as at first pre-
sented, says: "In all the debate there
was not word of objection against dis
avowing all words offensive to the South
ern Presbyterians, but there was great
apprehension that the Assembly might
be charged with withdrawing these de-
clarations of loyalty to the Union. These
testimonies were stand, and they were
not willing to say word that would ever
be construed as going back upon the re-
cords of their fathers" Here the dis
elimination refer to is clearly made
Now, what was the construction, all
things considered, which it was proper to
put upon this whole matter? We saw
that their Assembly had sent us an alb
solute, unqualified retraction as to her
esq, schism, and blasphemy," and they
declare that their (awkwardly interject-
ED resolution does not modify it. Then
the exception reserved as to loyalty"
etc., must have been restricted in its IN
te1atnlent to declarations considered sim
ply as opinions and separate from any
offensive applications of them to oul
Church.
This course commends itselft the ludg-
ment of our people
% Because 1t a0aS right. We stand
upon the righteous principle long age
taken. We never claimed the right to
require the Northern Assembly to apollo
gise to US for its political declarations.
We demanded one thing only, and if rea-
sonably satisfied that they have met us
on that ground, the alienation is so far
ended. 1t is a solemn duty " as much as
lieth in us to live peaceably with all men ~
This strife between two great Presbyte
rian Churches has been, aside from the
question Of blame, either here or there,
grievous scandal before Christendom
1t is always and eminently obligatory to
do every thing consistent with righteous
ness and truth in taking up such stumb
ling blocks.
(2) 1t 1OaS n,agnanjmouS No specific
allegation had ever been made by the
Northern Assembly against the Southern
as to a single offensive word. For five
whole years we had remained under all
those intolerable aspersions Of 1875, 1876
as silent as the grave. In 1870 we were
formally requested to make statement
of wrongs, and Of things conceived to be
necessary to an adjustment. In response
to this there was among other things,
very severe charge against the Northern
land now UnitedD Church as having i'm
plicated itself improperly with political
questions, and as having lowered the
standard Of orthodoxy in the manner Of
their union. I will frankly own, what l
have always thought, that this statement
was injudicious, and went much beyond
the real state of facts, and was an irrita.
ton which might have been avoided. At
any rate it was not appropriate to pro
noaal for merely fraternal relations NOT