The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-03-01
TIE RESPONSE OF DRs. HAYS AND GLE.
LAND TO TIE DEMAND OF REV.
WILLIAM BROWN, D. D


June issue of the Kentucky Presbyterian is
before u.s. The courteous terms in which it
is eouched, and the Christian spirit exhibits,
are appreciated. While we reply with the
same " "plaiDness and earnessness" We trust
you, too, will understand that nothing We say
is said in an acrimonious spirit.
If the effectiveness of the shot is deter
mined by the Rutteriug of the birds, our ar
ticle 10 the April number Of the Kentucky
Presbyterian must have touched very ten
der spot indeed. Since that time editorials
and articles from correspondents, the regu-
lar issue of the paper, and private circulars,
Chicago, and st last Richmond, have been
invoked to repair the damages 1t was not
our purpose to make any reply to these re-
peated attempts Of your friends to obscure
or ignore the ugly fact that the Southern
Assembly, as represented by you and your
colleagues in the Baltimore Conference, went
into court with very unclean hands, demand
ing a humihating reparation for exactly
what she herself had done. We are sim
eerely desirOus of seeing fraternal relations
established between the two Churches
What happened ten years ago should not, in
our judgment, stand in the way of fraterual
greetings now, if there are no present OBJ
stacles in the way. Having exculpated our
selves in our first article from all RESPONSE
bihty for the erroneous impression the Ken
t,cky Presbyterian had endeaVored to make,
and the mischievous position it had assumed,
it was our purpose to quit subject the con-
tinued agitation of which can only tend to
keep the two Churches apart.
But that article appears to make the ad-
voeates of your Baltimore demand still un-
easy. Apparently constituting our silence
into an admission of al error, you make the
peremptory demand upon US that we shall
quiet their troubled consciences by speaking
again, and, in speaking, acknowledge we were
wrong. "I claim of you an admission of
the failure is the language you use.
Well, sir, you are the author of the letter
adopted by the Southern Assembly in which
the terms unscriptural," fanatical, "
"perniciOus heresies," ETC., are found. You
certainly know to whom, and to what allu-
sion was made in the use of them. COnse-
Quently, an unqualified denial from you that
they were used in allusion to opinions pre-
vailing in our Church, and to dogmas as
serted and deliverances made by cur Assem-
bly,, will be satisfactory as far as you are
concerned.
More than this : it was the same Assem-
bly, that spoke of the "schismatical intru
ders; and you being a member of it were
in the best position to know who those 'schis'
matical intruder" were. Consequently, an
unambiguous affirmation from you " in few
plain words to this effect" that our Board
and its missionaries were not alluded to, or
included in, the phrase will be conclusive as
far as it goes.
But, sir, we in common with many more
have been struck with the fact that in these
particulars your letter is singularly unsat-
isfactory and defective. And this is the
more remarkable coming from you. Your
able editorials in your own paper reveal the
fact that but few men know the force of
words. or how TO use them better than you
do. True, every sentence in the opening of
your letter is calculated TO create the i'm
preston that you are Just about to say some
thing quite decisive Indeed it is with re-
msrkably bold and confident tread you walk
up to the subjecs The closing part Of your
letter is eminently calculated to create the
impression you certainly have said something
very decisive. Indeed it is with most tri.
umphant air you walk away. But after di'
verting attention by suggesting We could not
have had your Minutes before US, and by
enlarging gu alleged Interpretations of the
most trivial, and wholly immaterial oharac'
ter (for example, a that, in place o.
which,, you come to the solitary affirmation
you make, and say, 81 positively affirm tha
your Assembly is neither named nor alluded
to anywhere in the connection.
Now to all this We reply: 1. We ar,
obliged to you for excusing us on the grOunc
we did not have your Minutes But we de
cline ths apology. Your Minutes were, an,
are still, in our hands.
2. In your own emphatic language we pos
itively affirm that in every word and sylla
bic that has the slightest bearing on til
matter IN hand our quotations were true t
the letter. Our solitary object in maxim
the quotations was to show you had used tn
words "unscriptural, "fanatical," f" "here
sizes, ETC., the very words you regarded a
so objectionable when used by Us. You d
not deny that our quotations in these PAL
ticulars were exactly correct. Now this wa
all that candOr on our part called for, an
an enlargement by you on wholly irrelevan
interpretations saVOrs strongly of an attemE
to raise dust for the purpose Of Obscurin