The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-03-01
OUR ISSUE WITH DRS. HAYS AND
CLELAND.

IPREFAToRY STATEMENT. A brief explanation
is proper for right understanding of what is here
presented.
From various articles in the Kentucky Presbyte.
7-iqR the Central Presbyterian, and the Herald ana
PreSbgter, beginning as far back as March, 1875,
it appears that was led to make certain issue
with two ministers of the Northern Presbyterian
Church, viz. The Rev. j. S. Hays, D. D., Pro
lessor in the Theological Seminary at Danvile,
and the Rev I. H. Clelsnd, Of Lebanon, both 10
the State of Kentucky. l made proposal which
looked to discussion Of this issue In the columns
of the Herald and PreSJyter, and also OF the Cen
trail Presbyterian. 1t suggested that the gentle
men here named should prepare an article sustain
ing their allegation, and place it 10 my hands for
the preparation of a reply, and that both should
then 20 into the two papers side by side-the pub
LEGATION being as nearly at the same time as posi-
bic. This would give all readers the obvious sd-
vantage of having both arguments under view at
the same time. Owing to various mishaps, al
ready explained and not necessary to be repeated
here, this offer failed TO reach those gentlemen I'M
ill some time in last October 1t was rejected but
they proceeded to republish in the Herald and
PfeSbgter an article of mine which had appeared IN
the KeRtuckg Presbyterian of last May. That arti.
Gle was prepared on my way to the meeting Of our
General Assembly 10 st. Louis. Ii was written at
a single nightsittug in my room at Cincinnati,
after aseertainlng from the editor IN CO7lngton,
KY, that it could be published 1t contained a
distinct challenge touching the issue now made,
but only a very partial discussion of Its merits
other matters also claiming attention. Inssmueh
as the course pursued of necessity failed to present
to the readers of the Herald and FrsS5yter any sd
equate means Of forming judgment OF the question,
[ proposed to the editor and proprietor, the Rev.
DR.. Monfort, that if he would admit reply, also
would publish both articles IN one aud the same Is
sue OF the Central Presbyterian. His answer,
kindly aeeeding TO this proposal, reached me late
in January, and when far removed, ID Southern
Florida, from documents that were indispensable
He was, however, Immediately informed Of my
intention to proceed in the matter at the earliest
time practicable after my return home. The re-
suit viii be found in what follows.
Rev. j. s. Hays d. D.
Rec T. H. CteiaRd, d. d.:
Dear Sirs,-Your elaborate article in the
Herald and Prss5ytsr claims, as it hereby
receives, my acknowledgment for its oOur-
teous debate, and none the less though fla
vored with a somewhat causdc criticism. 1t
is a vigorous effort to maintain position
inconsiderately taken, and so indefensible
that few discharges of heavy artillery would
leave it in fragments. Even the smaller
shot now administered must make it COM
Portable for you to take up your quarters
elsewhere. You undertook, in the Ken
tucky Presbyterian of April, 1875, to assign
several reasons why the Northern Assembly
ought not to express disapprOvsl of certain
accusations it had made against the South
ern Assembly. Among them was this (the
italics are mine.
GA second reason for refusing to accept
the proposition was that the Southern Church
was guilty of indulgiag IN the same sort of
language; in other words, that the Southern
Church Vas as deep in the mud as the North
ern was az the mire and that such a pro-
position coming from them ought to be aC-
eOmpanied with proposition to brush up
We know this statement was
denied but after we have made
the following statement of facts, we think
the majority of those who read this article
viii conclude that not the least surprising
part of the denial is that it was made over
the signature of William Brown and with the
of DR.. B. NJ. Palmer"
This is still more definitely stated in your
Card published in the Herald and Pres6ytsr
Of July 18th. You there make the follow
log deelaration-the italics your own;
We distinctly repeat the statement that
the Southern Church did use the rery same
language tOoard the NortAsrn that you CON-
plain of Ia the Baltimore Conference, and r0e
hold OUrselves prepared to prove It, etc.
g The uery same" mark that.
You also now say that our Southern
Assembly" demands of yours "a humiliat
ing reparation for exactly what she herself
had done" "Eraety;" mark that.
Here have taken issue with you, and
without any waste of words let US proceed
to its trial
Your allegation is refutod by hefoIloEing
considerations:
1. It is one hitherto unheari Of. say
this with an intimate knowledge Of what has
been brought forward in this controversy on
both sides You are the authors Of bran