Year: 1877

PHYSIOLOGICAL SEMINARY, COLUMBIA. S. O.,


January 16,h, 1877.


Rev and Dear Brother Ten years ago
to day l entered on my duties in this Insti-
tuition. During all that time and for years
before, 1 do not remember to have written
for any journal an article designed to oppose
the ecclesiastical views of any of my Presby-
terian brethren. You know l greatly pre-
fer the practical to the speculative, and the
didactic to the pOlemic. l an no contIo-
vertist. Neither my tastes nor my talents
lead me that way. If there is any earthly
blessing that 1 desire above all others, it is
that may lead a quiet and peaceful life in
all godliness and honesty. 1t is always pain
ful for me to engage in controversy, espe-
cially with Gods children. With Dr.. Ruff
ner, say, '' 1 would not give an hour Ol
brotherly love for whole eternity of con-
tention.,,'


In church courts when dabateable matters

have bsen presented, have frankly given
my views. Yet do not misunderstood me.
l 6nd no fault with those honOred brethren,
who pursue different course, much less DO
Iimpugn their motives for so doing. 1t ia
dangerous to judge another mans servant
To his own Master he standeth or fslleth.-
He that iudgeth US all is the Lord.


Nor do 1 intend in this letter to say any
thing harsh. l design to utter friendly
though earnest remonstrsnee and entreaty
to others. 1 do not forget, 1 DO not wish to
forget, that for nearly FIVE years have been
living on borrowed time. Eternity is at
hand The Judge standeth before the door.
If in this letter you see aught that admits Of
either good or bad sense, hope you will
not regard me as Intentionally ambiguous,
and will oharitably put on it the best con-
structiOn possible. And if an unguarded
word escapes me, beg you to believe that
in my heart condemn it, and trample it IN.
der my feet.


This letter may call forth replies from
some of my brethren but have at present
no purpose of making any rejoiuder, / Dc
net wish to embrOil any portion Of Gods her
itage.


You and several others ask my views o
the Book of Church Otder. l do not pro
pose now to go into the matter at length
My judgment against the proposed changt
of books is clear and strong; but l shall no
attempt to cover the whole ground. merel.
wish to say few things that appear to nj
to be worthy of consideration. Most that
can say will be mere heads and hints 0
thought. cannot enlarge on them. | be
gin by saying:


1. 1t is not given to mortals to tell how
new constitution or q new constitutions
principle win work, until it is tried on
given people. Il may have been salutary i
one country. That does not prove it will d
good in another. That is the best funds
mental law, which best suits a people.
would be easy to illustrate this truth by man
examples, and to confirm it BY the higbet
authority. I think 1 first learned it frol
Chief Justice Marshall.


?. Should the changes proposed in II
New Book be brought in, there will not be lie
in our Church ten men, who can tell US Wit
is the Law, and how we must proceed. "
now have the Old Book with long series
decisions under it, and so we know the LAY
Make the change, and your Digest, givir
decisions from 1889, is worthless. Is
worthy of our Church thus to perplex OI
people?


3. The New Book either does or does n
make great changes. At one time we a
told that it is far better than the Old.


that is so, it must be by extensive alteration
We 20 on and show how radical and reVOl
tiouary it will be in operation. Then We a
told there is very little difference between t
Old Book and the New. If there is only
slight difference, why disturb the house


God about such small things


4. 1t would be stain upon the oharac
of our Southern Church now to adopt bO
which she rejected so lately. 1t would