Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1878-11-30

tIdg tLC uA4Al tbtCA AASbA GIL al No VI Ii
Wiley have not disturbed this fra.
ternal feeling in the least. His
third question, so far as itrelates to
Rev. DR.. Spence, was fully answered
in the CHRONICLE of Nov. 10th in
reply to the inquiries of d" A Meth
odist." DR.. Wiley has a copy Of
that paper and our readers
VIII remember the facts as
then stated and it is unnecessary
to repeat. So far as his fourth and
fifth questions bear upon this case,
the compromise above alluded to
renders them entirely irrelevant,
and although we can answer them
with entire satisfaction to ourselves
and our readers, if not to the salts
faction of DR.. Wiley himself, they
would involve the discussion OF
matters which the best men of all
Churches desire, for the sake Of
peace, to be left undisturbed.
DR.. Wiley denies that he used the
words "stole, stolen or thieI." We
never reported that he used the
word "thief," but our reporter, who
is a thoroughly reliable gentleman,
is very positive that ne did use the
word stolen, and the denial
ought to have been made sooner,
But whether he did or not; his re-
marks certainly implied a charge Of
that kind.
DR.. Wiley knows enough of the
rules of evidence TO know that we
can not be expected to prove a
negative. lie made a charge which
has been deRied. The rules Of
evidence require that he should
now sustain his charges with proof,
But we put it on higher grounds
than the mere rules of evidence
adopted by the civil courts. We
put it on high moral grounds. DR..
Wiley is opposed to fratornizing
with an organized body of Chris
tian ministers who preach the same
gospel he breaches and who wor-
ship the same God he worships. As
q reason for this he alleges that one
Of them has stolen (or takc1, if he
prefers to put it in that language
$1,000 from the Trustees Of.
The NJ. E. Church, South, in
Knoxville. lie owes it to
he owes it to the confer
ence with which he refuses TO fra
.ernizc, he owes IL to the Christian
people Of all denominations, he
owes it to the vast body of men who
belong ono church, but who respect
md venerate a Christian ministry
70 make good his charge or make
he amende honorable. This is the
question at issue. 1t is not a ques-
ion as to the title Of church prop,
.rty under articles OF separation, or
Supreme Court decisions. When
he men who represented these two
churches in Knoxville, acting upon
he teachings of a gospel of love
nd not of hate, agreed in the spirit |
f true Christianity to settle their .
by mutual consent, those |
.ue5tions were all settled, and no man
las any right after such settlement
0 throw an obstacle in the way Of
christian harmony by imputing In
roper motives or gross dishonesty
0 either party. When DR.. Vile
xplains upon Scriptural grounG5,
.ow lie IS a Christian minister can
ofuse to fratern;ze with a sis,c'
hurch, because, as he alleges, and
ais to prove, that it has bad man
4 it, and justifies his assertion that
he whole fraternity business, as pre- J
ented by that church, IS a piece
I grand Hypocrisy" then, if the
ublic seems to demand it we NAV
ONE down to the questions Of detail
pom which he attempts to draw us
fl from the real issue we have made,
ut until then he must excuse US.
We beg again to say, we have no
malice against him. We acknowl-
dge his high character as a man
nd as a minister. lie is a gentle
ian of irreprOachable character