The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-02-24
REPLY OF CYRUS H. MCCORMICK TO
DR.. LORD.

THE vindication of Mr.. Mccormick against the
accusations of DR.. Lord, has been referred to In
previous numbers of this paper. The article of
correspondent from N. York gave, last week, very
iudicious summary of its contents. On many &C.
counts it would crafty our feelings as well
multitude in Virginia and elsewhere, who have long
known Mr. Mccormick as good man and true, 10
publish the entire communication. But the great
space (six columns of the North Western PreS6yte
rian) which the discussion of the points involved
necessarily occupied, will hardly allow this We
must however, find room for the larger part of it,
The first part is taken up in vindicating his posi-.
ton in regard to the nonpsyment of the 4th install
ment of his bond DIR. Lord had specified certain
particulars which he calls his Or. Lord's) real
offences, and which, as he alleges, had made him
almost from his first entrance upon his Professor
ship in the Theological Seminary at Chicago, OBJ
noxious to the displeasure of Mr.. Mccormick and
others holding his sentiments upon certain public
matters. In commenting upon these ''real offences
$50 called he takes occasion to make fierce assaults
npon Mr.. Nee. How that gentleman dispoSes Of
them may be seen from what follows.-ED. Cen.
PRESBYTERIAN.
l must now notice your own pretended
"real offences, and add something to the
list of your actual offence. The letter of
DR.. Rice, hereto subjoined, will assist in
showing hOeO "reap' your "offences" are.
l. You say, Some months before the war
began, but when the danger of it was be-
coming imminent, you proposed to the pro-
fessors to issue, in connection with yourself,
sort of manifesto or address to the South.
The object was to save the Union and
slavery. To give it more weight, you wished
it to 90 forth over our signatures. One of
the professors was requested to prepare it
and submit it for our consideration. 1t was
an able paper, but conceived and written
from Southern standpoint. In the exist
ing conflict, it assumed that slavery was all
right, and freedom all wrong. l declined
to sign it. Materially modified and toned
down, it was published in the Erpositor,
without a name. This was my first consci-
Gus offence"
Immediately preceding this you had said,
"From the first, however, was conscious,
in my immediate surroundings, of an at
mosphere different from that to which | had
been accustomed. 1t seemed to be, not so
much that of Lake Michigan, as of Chesa-
peake Bay; of the prosperous and free North,
as of the South. There were an air, color,
tone and general drift of things which made
slowly but at length quite definitely this i'm
preston, that the professors were expected
to be the opponents of Southern ideas, and
defenders, if necessary, of Southern institu-
tions."
Elsewhere in your Christian and concil-
iatory letter you said, "The purpose of max
ing the Seminary an outpost or bulwark of
slavery, if any one entertained it, had plain
ly become like forlorn hope.
Should these statements, equally IN
friendly to your colleagues, to the original
directors and students of the Seminary, and
damaging to the church at large, be found
to be wholly untrue, what then? What
would your position then be before the church
and all candid and impartial meu2 Could
any man, who truly loved the Old School
Presbyterian Church and her institutions,
and who was truly loyal to all her interests,
permit himself to make such charges against
an important Seminary, its professors and
founders? That they are not only unsus
tanned, as they are in your letter, but un-
founded assertions, the letter of DR.. Rice,
your senior professor for two years, here
with submitted to the public, abundantly
shows. 1t disposes completely of your " first
conscious offence" His testimony can be
confirmed by that of the only other surviv-
ing professor, and by most of the Directors
then in Office. "But what has this to do
with your dishonored bond?" Nothing, but
it goes to show your unftness for the posi-
ton you have used every means to secure,
and the improperly of your asking me to
pay S25, 900 for your support in the chair
2. Your second conscious offence is equal
ly groundless with the first. If you used
the "strong" expressions you now state
against the nomination of "the Rev. DR.
Moore" for "the Chair of Theology in the
Seminary and the pulpit of the North
church." have no recollection of it. do
we'll recollect, however, that at meeting of
the Board of Directors, DR.. Boardman, DIR.
Moore and DR.. Gurley were named for the,
chair. As l recollect, neither of the three'
gentlemen would accept. DR.. Halsey spoke
in the highest terms of DR.. Moore, and I
was asked to write to him, which / did.
Some doubts were expressed in the meeting
as to his loyalty, and whether he had writ
ten certain things against the North, as had
been represented, but was not known. Sat
isfactory information was sought on that
question, but his declinature superseded fur
Their investigation. There was no such is
sue made about him, however, as you repre-
sent. DR.. Gurley was my friend, personal,
ly, and his call afterwards to the pastorate
of the North church, and visit to Chicago,
were brought about through my instrument
tally. He was unwilling to undertake both
preaching and teaching.
3. Your "third conscious offence" the
character of the article written by you as
an editorial for the ErpOsitOr, do not re,
collect. | have some recollection of the
since your reference TO it, but
only as disagreeing with you as to the expe-
diency of publishing the article as an edito-
rial After DR.. Rice left Chicago, was not
only the proprietor but the responsible man
ager Tor EDITOR of the paper; and as you
have made good your claim of having been
a Radical of the first water-often the case
with converts from one doctrine to another
it cannot be considered very strange that
an editorial written by you without any con-
ference whatever with me, under all the ex-
element to which you refer, should not have
been precisely what l chose to be responsible
for-apart from the fact well understood,
that conservative Presbyterians generally are