Year: 1877

alton to interfere with it; but let all con-
cerned fairly and honestly examine what has
been proposed if any one can show by pro-
per argument that the changes should not
be made, by all means let them be rejected;
if otherwise, let them be adopted. But what
is to be done if the case presented by DIR.
Plumer should arise--if the Church should
adopt changes which he could not approve
without "defling his conscience by saying
what was not true?" The Constitution
makes no provision for such case; it al
ways takes it for granted, Of course, that its
provisions, lawfully incorporated, can be ap'
proved with good conscience. But the case
is expressly provided for in the Plan Of Union
agreed upon between the Synods of New
York and Philadelphia in 1853. Section II
of that Plan is as follows:


"When any matter is determined by
major vote, every member shall either ac-
lively concur with, or .passively submit to
such determination or, if his conscience per-
nit him to do neither, he shall, after sufi-
cient liberty modestly to reason and remon-
strate, pesceably withdraw from our commun.l
ion, without attempting to make any schism.


1t is difficult to understand what DIR.
Plumer can mean when he says, speaking of
his not consenting to adopt the New Book:
eff for this in my old age, | am to be hated
and bounded, or my name to be cast out as
evil, or to be clothed with suspicion, l can
not help it," What can all this mean ?
Who is thinking of hating and bounding"
or otherwise prosecuting Dr.. Plumer for his
views? Against whom is he bringing these
sations-that they are SO malignant that
they regard difference Of opinion as reason
for "hating and bounding" We cannot
believe, without more specific proof, that
there are in our Church persons so Infamous
ly wicked as to Z" hate and hound" any hu-
man being young or old, on account of diff
ference as to questions touching our Form
of Government, or indeed as to any other
questions, for that matter. Surely he can
not mean that it is "hating and bounding
him to wish that our Book of Church Order
shall more perfectly accord with Scriptural
principles; he surely cannot intend to secure
support for his views in opposition to the
New Book by exciting in this way sympathy
with himself as the victim of persecution
We wonder what he can mean. We cannot
tell but we do see that there is not the re-
motest connexion between amendment of our
Book and "hating and bounding" DR.. Plum.
er or any one else. Aud We think that he
ought not to intimate that there is.


The only other point to which We shall
refer is the frequently recurring intimation
that the adoption of the New Book will re.
suit in rending our Church, and that the
writer will not submit to his brethren ia this
matter. 1t is somewhet painfai TO attonpt
to weigh an argument of this kind. 1t is
one with which we unhappily became famil-
lar very early in life. There are few groups
of children playing together where the words
may not sometimes be heard, Z" If you wont
play my way, wont play at all" Even in
early childhood, we had little respect for this
argument; and our respect for it has not in
creased With our years. Should the New
Book be adopted, we hope Dr.. Plumer will
on reconsideration think better of it, and not
put into execution his threat of resistance
or withdrawal. But suppose his determine
tion to be unaltersbly fixed, would he really
desire that the whole Church shoald abstain
from making her standards conform more
perfectly with the word Of God, merely be-
cause of the threat Of withdrawal on the part
of one of it's ministers, however venerable on
account Of his years or his station? 1t is
hard to persuade ourselves that he would wish
the Church to abstain from acting in accord
ance with its conscientious convictions OF duty
under the influence of fear lest he should Sc
cede. We will rather try to believe that we
NAV have misunderstood the numerous ex-
pressions which seem to threaten resistance
and withdrawal, and that be merely wishes
to say strongly that he hopes the New Book
may not be adopted; for we would not like
to attribute to him either the arrogance that
could regard such an argument as of any
weight, or the cOntemptuous opinion of the
Church that would lead to the supposition
that it could be deferred by such threat
from doing its duty.


In conclusion, We would earnestly reiter.
ate the advice We ventured to give last week:
EXAMINE THE Book. This duty has been


laid upon us by our highest church judica-
tory. II has not indeed ordered us to adopt
tit could not do that. But we, as loyal
Presbyterians, as faithful to our solemn obli-
cations, cannot refuse to trost with respect
the action of the Assembly in referring to
US the Book for our consideration. Let US
examine it uniufuenced by anything that is
8 irrelevant or extraneous; if it s better, more
0 scriptural than our present Form, let it be
r adopted; if not, let it be elected.


In OUR good land, where there are SO many
Sunday Schools, it is hard TO think of a
: country that has but few. Most of us have
8 been in the Sunday Scaool since we were
old enough to walk, and We rather take it for
). granted Ghst all children are thus favored.


d. toLo n Norynopu f;V ioctanoa q land oa