The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-06-21

grounds: (l) Ihat all those actlonS nau
been, since 1870, pronounced by the AS
sembly of their United Church null and
void" The answer was that null and
void" simply stopped the further operation
of an existing measure, that it could have
no effect upon the past, and had in its
nature no proper application to offensive
imputations. (2) That since their union,
and in consequence of it, they had now
no authority to set in judgment upon
the acts of Assemblies previous to it.
The answer to this was that the utmost
pains had been taken in forming their
union to preserve true succession, and
shat as they succeeded to all the benefits
thus secured, it was in vain to deny
succession to corresponding responsible
ties. This position of their committee
was enthusiastically confirmed by their
Assembly of May, 1875 In 1876 they
passed paper to the effect that nothing
they had ever said, was to be construed
as an imputation upon the Christian
honor of the Southern Church. But our
Assembly of 1877 refused to accept this
as satisfactory, because the offensive
epithets were not ambiguous and did
not admit of being constructive only
appropriate word being retraction.' -
In 1877 their committee of correspon-
dence, in answer to overtures, brought
in paper containing in the most gentle
terms an expression Of regret touching
the matter mentioned, but it was voted
down by large majority. The South
ern Assembly by its action in 1875,
1876, 1877, 1881, held its position with
almost perfect unanimity AS late as
1881 it adopted (not more than three
dissenting a most emphatic paper de-
claring that they had taken no step
forward, and no step backward" Thus
stood the position OF each up to the pre-
sent year. The demand of the Southern
Church was stated with perfect distinct
ness, and was as distinctly refused. Let
this be kept in mind, for it will help us
somewhat to understand who it is that
has advanced in recent changes, and how
far. Let us notice
2. THE action of on, late ASSEMBLY.
Overtures were received from four Pres
byteries, asking that delegation should
be sent to the Northern Assembly, there
by establishing full and formal relations
with that body. These papers were re-
ferred, as usual to the committee on
correspondence, from which a report was
made in due time adverse to granting
the request Three reasons were as
signed, which were to this effect:
G.) Because it would be inconsistent
with the position deliberately taken by
our Church long ago. 1t never had been
a question whether we ought, in some re-
spects, to recognize the Northern Church
as branch of the Church of Christ 1t
was only question how far it was pro-
per to go in this direction. When asked
in the Baltimore conference to exchange
delegates, the answer was that as this,
like the Interchange of ambassadors
among civil governments, was the most
complete evidence of the most friendly
relations being fully established, we could
not take that step until the imputations
already mentioned were removed. To
grant the requests of the overtures would
be to recede from our whole stand which
had been approved by five succeeding
Assemblies. This ought not be done
without some good reason. Then,
(2) Because that position was thing
right in itself. The accusations were
enormous in their character, and had
never been removed, and as long as they
remained the issue could not be other
wise than living issue.
(3.) Because the course requested would
deeply grieve many of our best people
who as members of our communion, felt
their own Christian honor impugned by
the aspersions cast upon their Assembly, |
and looked to it for protection as the
highest court of the Church.
The main discussion was upon this pa.
per. It's adoption was earnestly opposed |
on various grounds. Q) By one brother
because he thought the grounds Of sepa-
ration were "quibbles" (2) By others
because the Northern Assembly while
not doing by any means all they ought,
had said enough to justify full recon
ciliation. (3) Others took the ground
that an absolute unconditional forgive
ness Of all wrongs, however great and un-
rectlfled, was a Christian duty. (4) That
In 1870 we had said as hard things of
them. (5) A large number, while in IA
vor OF declining to grant the request of
the overtures, preferred to omit the rea-
sons, and some preferriug to retain the
reasons, desired some notifications.
The report Of the committee was earn
estly sustained. Chiefly on the grounds
stated in it. These were gone over fully, |
but it is not necessary to rehearse the ar
guments here.