The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-10-04
For the Central Presbyterian.
Vote of the Presbytery of Mont
gomery on Fraternal Relations.

The respected brother who writes in
the Central of September 18th over the
signature of M has, l think, drawn
one or two erroneous differences. Having
acquired an official habit of following
the record, 1 did not in my report note
the fact that two members voted after
the vote; and my brother I'M. s" at
tempt to obtain a different result by
going out of the record, when critically
considered, afordr another roo that the
experiment is dangerous and mislead-
ing one.
Nineteen votes were counted against
the minority report and 10 for it II
votes were counted against the majority
report and Ii for it. M" adds 5 who
were virtually for the majority report,
according to his theory, but did net 50
vote two of these were out of the house
and did not vote at all thus the voting
members were reduced from 30 on the
first vote to q on the second. One from
consideration for the minority voted
against the majority report, having voted
against the minority report, and two
voted against the majority report "undei
a misrepresentation" Surprising that
these two had voted against the minori-
ty report we must then add to Is, and
take 3 from II, and so the vote stands
16 to 9-equal to 25.
But according to M" there were 81
votes cast. Where were the other two !?
Again, when M" attempts to &C.
count for the difference between 19 and
IL he accounts for 5, whereas the differ
ence between 10 and Is is 6; how then
can he infer that the vote approving
the majority report was the same which
rejected the minority report p
One ruling elder assures me that he
voted against the minority report, but
did not vote at all on the ajoritY re-
port; this again upsets this statement
Add this number to the two out of
the house, according to IN, who did not
vote, and the votes on the majority re-
port should have been &c, but they were
really Is and 1875, four less than the
% voting when the minority report was
before the house. We have one member
not accounted for at last all of which
goes to show that travelling out of the
record in a matter of this sort makes
confusion worse confounded.
In conclusion Analyze the reasons
given by NJ" TO show why FIVE mem
bers who were in favor OF the majority
report failhI ~ rOUe Tor IL.
- ~ 11SismGa' assembly, who sustain, d
its action in an elaborate speech before
the Presbytery, voted no against that
action from consideration for the mi.
nority." This remarkable attitude on
such question places Mr.. Gordon in a
singular position. No Presbyter of oul
Church would require such a concession
of brother; and | am at loss to con-
ceive how minister whose convictions
are always so decided as those of Mr.
g., should feel that he was required to
make any such sacrifice among brethren
who are SO well persuaded of his sinceri-
ty and fraternal affection. Considera-
ton for the minority must have been
with him want of conviction in favor
of the majority report this I should in
fer from his speech, which was clear and
convincing till he reached that "expla-
natory revolution" and then, I think, he
showed plainly that he was not satisfied
with what he termed an unhandsome
thing" and being not satisfied himself,
of course he did not satisfy others. By
the way we did not hear from our other
commissioner, Rev. Dr. McIlwaine, at
all. lie was in the chair, and after a
long discussion was unwilling to speak ;
but l wish his modesty had so far been
set aside as to permit us to hear at least
few plain words from him. / know not
how he stands on the question.
AS to brother " NJ 8" other four advo-
Gates too were accidentally out Of the
house. l cannot give these brethren
credit for excessive zeal on that impor-
tant subject, nor even for decisive opin-
ion, when it is remembered that the
vote on the majority report Immediately
followed the vote on the minority report.
The remaining two voted under a
misapprehension." In matter appeal
ing SO strongly for careful attention, and
about which all would have been sup
posed to take pains during the discus
sion, if not before, to make up their
minds, it seems hardly fair to impeach
the action of the Presbytery by the men.
ton of such votes as these, Evidently
these brethren, for some reason or other
were not prepared to have themselves
counted on either side.
While writing this piece / have re
ceive The Presbyterian Mems, our excel
lent 6ttle Presbyterian paper published
by two enterprizlng brethren. Rev. w
! O.. Campbell and Rev n. G.. Gordon. a