The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-03-24
THE REV. DIR. LYON.


The extended article by DR.. Lyon on the Bal
timOre Conference, is copied BY us about two
weeks after its publication in two other OF our
church-papers There is no good reason why
production from his pen. should have a special IL
diligence Of this kind not usually extended to
others. We are, however, perfectly willing that
our readers should see the utmost that can be said
in objection to what was done by the Committee
of the Southern Church. Let it be sifted to its
last sands.
Without undertaking the tedious work of an
swering everything in this very earnest efusiOn,
there are ample materials at hand for giving the
writer of this article prodigious pause.
Before proceeding further, remark as to the
constitution of the Committee. Dr.-Lyon says the
failure to effect fraternal relations will not sur
prise many for reasons not necessary to state at this
present time" This general insinuation becomes
more particular when he elsewhere says " 1t is
our firm belief that, had the Committee been ap
pointed by party representing the large m 'rity
of the body, instead of by protesting Moderator,
the result would have been different
As to this there are few plain facts worth more
than thousand eOpjectures or insiDuatons. One
is that when tho Moderator, (Dr. Glrardeaul ex-
pressed reluctance to appoint the Committee,
and signi6ed bis preference to have it appointed
By the Assembly itself, this same party repre-
santng the large majority OF the body" lit there
was any party deliberately after conference on
that point, imposed the duty on its presiding off
Ger. Another is that the Modela tor publicly and
earnestly requested members Of the Assembly to
put into his hands the names of such persons as
they Judged suitable, remarking that it would very
much aid him in the performance of very respon-
sibe duty. Another is that after this Committee
was announced, it was confirmed BY very earnest
vote of the Assembly--two persons only voting in
the negative.
Some personal references is here unavoidable,
bat we give the exact facts: The writer of this
tice, it is known, had place on the Committee of
Conference appointed by the Assembly of lS7O-a
Committee nominated by another Committee ap-
pointed for that purpose, and unanimously con-
6rmed by the whole body. We have reason to
know that Dr. Lyon was very well pleased with the
selection. Farther it is proper to say that in
letter written before the last Assembly, in reference
pressed very earnestly the hope that the chairman
of that Committee (supposing it to be appOintedl
should be the same persOntO whom the duty was act
ually assigned by the MOderator-at whom he now
makes such an unbecoming thrust.
But further than this-there was not in that
Committee particle Of difference on any essential
point; not the shadow of difference on the main
question, whether concurrent Declaration" or the
null and void, or any expression used by the
Northern Committee satisfactorily met the real point
between us. o. this they we're perfectly unani-
nous.
From this it is plain-and it is for this point
only our own name is referred to-that If DR.. Lyon
was satisfied that the name Of William Brown
should be on that committee, the fact of perfect
unanimity lust stated efectualy breaks the neck
of his objection to the names of B. NJ. Palmer, K.
p. Farris, James Inglis and B. NJ. Estes, one or
all. We know assuredy that the committee of
1870 would have required more, as basis of fra
ternal correspondence than this committee OF 1874
did and that any committee taking lower ground
than our position at Baltimore would have utterly
misrepresented the sentiment of the Assembly and
the Church that sent them. They could have
represented nobody but DR.. Lyon and the handful
gathered here ard there who sympathise with hirA.
But would it indeed represent even DR.. Lyon?
Thereby hangs a tale ;" and when one comesto
look at its dimensions it must be agreed that the
word might as well be spelt the other loay. Now,
gentle reader, listen to the story and judge.
DR.. Lyon was a member of the Louisville As
sembly in 1870, when this same question first came
up. That Assembly adopted Pastoral Letter ad-
dressed "to all the churches under its care" 1t
occupies ten pages of the pamphlet now before US,
and is entirely taken up with explaining the
grounds of the answer given to the overture sent
BY the Northern Assembly Now for the adoption
of that Pastoral Letter, let it be known that Dr.
LYON did then and there vote-the vote being a.
most perfectly unanimous. The only thing he re-
uuired as the condition of his vote, was the strik
ing out of the word 'ealumny' and substituting |
the word "imputatious.' To getS full impr6 ssion
Of Dr.. Lyon in 1870, and the same I've bad almost
said aaother) Dr. Lyon 10 1875 would require
complete comparison of the article he now pub
fishes with the document to which, Gas the senti-
msnt of the Assembly in which he gave his vote, |
he of course expected the committee then appoint
ed to give heed in the expected conference. The |
two are almost as much alike as black and white. |
few extracts viii indicate the flavor of the whole
PASTORAL LETTER.
The overture from the Northern Assembly
was based upon the fatal assumption that mutual
grievances existed in reference to which it becau
necessary to arbitrate. This assumption is pre-
e,sely what We cannot truthtuly cOncede Our re
cords may be searched in vain for single act of
aggression, or single unfriendy declaration against
the Northern Church. We have assumed no att.
tude of hostility toward 1t.
whatever distractions may be in the way of
ecclesiastical fellowship were not created by us, and
we could not allow ourselves to be placed in the
false position before the world Of parties who had
been guilty Of wrong to the Northern Church -
Having placed nothing in the way Of Christian
fraternity, there was nothing for US to remove.
For all this DR.. Lyon voted in 1870. But more
the Pastoral Letter says
I'VE require, as an indispensable condition to all
correspondence, remuneration of that theory of
Church government which practically oblterates
the lower courts and destroys the appellate oharac
ter of the General Assembly" Il.
We'll, DIR. Lyon voted for that too, though, be
il known, the Committee at Baltimore, which he
SEEMS 10 think disI Osed to higge about TRIES"