The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-11-03
WILL THE ISSUE BE TRIED =!

After the lapse Of three months We at last
begin to catch sight of Drs. Hays and Gle
land. One of the Editors of the Herald and
Pres5wr (Cincinnati), writing to that paper
from "Mount Sterling, Kentucky, October
10Th makes the following statement, which
appears in his paper of October Goth:
"In . conversation with Rev. DR.. Hays. one of
the Danville Seminary professors, learned what
sIIrnr;sed me very much. It will be remembered
tbat DR. ri wrote an article which was published
in the KencL7 Presbyterian, critciSlng ITS editor
Rev d. e.. Beach, touching his views in regard to
fraterpal relations with the South, IN winch Dr
II. said that the South had charged on the North
an that it now asks US to retraet. 1t Will also oe
remembered that, upon being challenged 0y the
Ceatral Presbyterian to prove his charge, DIR. d.
sent an article to the Kentucky Ffes6yterlG"' writ
ten in support Of his proposition, which the edtor
refused to print and that IN regard to TINS ne pup
hshe6 a card IN our paper. The editor Oh the
Central upOn reading his card declaring thse the
Kentucky Presbyterian refused TO- pUohs1 the az
riele, proposed that DR.. Hays 9rucle' ana the an
sWer of the Central to it, should De puohshed IN
the Central and in our paper and 1t has several
times referred to Its proposition IN an exulting
manner. What surprised Us was that Dr. Hays
mayor heard of the offer of the Central de says
be Is quite Eea3y 10 make good his charge II ne
can have hearing both IN . Northern and South
ern paper. His article, refused and returned by
the Kentucky Presbyterian, Is on hand. All the
Central has to DO Is TO send his proposition TO
Rev. j. s. Hays. d. D., Danyille, Ky. We are
not dispose6 20 have further controversy on the
subject, but we believe that our Southern brethren
will be less exacting 10 advance OF entering into
fraterna relations if they can be reminded Of their
own sayings and doings IN regard to the Chureh
North. ="
If the editor of the Herald and PreS6yter
is surprised at what he states, there are some
things still more surprising to the editor OF
the Central Presbyterian.
One is that Drs. Hays and Cleland should
have failed to 90 hear of the offer of the Gen.
traL" since the paper of August 4th con-
tanning it was sent to the address Of both
those gentlemen, and also the two papers of
later date containing brief reference to
the fact that they had not been heard from
"a reference not in an "exulting tone, but
merely one of pleasant rsllying.
Another surprising circumstance is this,
that the Herald and Presbyter took no no.
tice of our offer. We said in the Central
Presbyterian of August 4th,-" The imputa-
tons made by the Northern Assembly, as
stated by our Committee Of Conference in
Baltimore, were "heresy," " blasphemy, and
"solism" with various epithets attached to
it, such as wicked, sinful" &C., &c.
To this was added the following:
"Here then is the issue. Drs. Hays and
Cleland declare themselves ready to prove
that the Southern Church did use the uery
same LANGUAGE tOVard the NortberR Church.
We distinctly deny that allegation, and say,
let them prOgs 1t If they can"
Further than this we 90 on to say:
GAS to the channel through which it
shall reach the public, it is supposed there
need be no trouble. The Herald and Pres
butter, it is true, could not see its way clear
to admit the . correspondence (Balrmore)
into its columns. Bat then it has been
abundantly indulgens ever since, and has
published discussions, editorial and other
wise, ION one side) it would be safe to say,
between FIVE and ten times that amount
Drs. HAYS and Cleland have been frequent
contributors, we believe; and had the article
sent to the Kentucky Presbyterian been
transmitted over the suspension bridge from
Coyington to Cincinnati it would no doubt
long before this have graced the columns OF
the Herald and Pres5yter, and been con-
frmed and defended by the whole editorial
staff. "
"We venture further to suggest this ma
tural way of meeting the issue. And to
make it the more satisfactory the following
proposal is added, namely; that the article
of DIS. Hays and Cleland, with our reply
shall be published together, Chat is In one
issue, and as nearly as practicable at the same
time, in both the Herald and Presbyter and
the Central Presbyterian In that way
Presbyterian readers on both sides can judge
for themselves wherein lies the truth involved
in this issue. IF Drs. Hays and Cleland
will forward their article to this office, we
will prepare reply, and make all arrange
ments for q simultaneous publication In both
papers, as soon as possible after receiving
information that this proposal is acceptable
to the Herald and Pres5yter.
And, now, after all this an editor of the
Herald and Pres5yter says: "What sur
prised US was that DR.. Hays never heard Of
the offer Of the Central" There is great
er surprise on the other side. If Drs. Hays
and Cleland failed to receive the copies of
the Central Presbyterian containing our Of
fer, that is comprehensive. But we sent,
besides our usual exchange, marked copy
to the Herald and Pres5yter, yet it remained
perfectly mann; and not only then, but under
the references We subsequently, made to the
failure to respond. We left nothing undone
on our parG TO bging the issue to fair trial.
Those gentlemen asserted il a card address
ed to Us, their readiness to prove a certain
allegation; to that proof we distinctly chal-
lenged them. That challenge we now as dis
tinety repeat. Weagain send them by mail
marked copy Of our original paper of Au-
guss 4.h, and to the Herald and Pres5yter
a marked copy Of this paper, and await the
response which they may see nc to make.
Meetings of the Synod of Virgina-One Of
Il. - l. MET Ia IN hn