Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-06-02
Mr EIfun,s sneech

Nh. MoDERAToR-False is.ues have beer
raised by he opponents OF the Committed.
report. We are virtually charged With dis
courtesy, insincerity, and with design o
completely nullifyipg The Atlanta Assem-
bly's act by discontinuing ffsternsl relstiou.
on any basis or method. The existence OF
continuation of fraternal relations are "a.
serted in the Assembly's almost unani-
mous act of yesterday. That act i. a mere
recognition OF what seem to be facts, viz: a.
The sentiment of a majority in our Assem-.
bly, seems to approve of the object aimed at
oy the Atlanta Assembly. II neither sp.
proves nor disapproves of the Atlanta action
az whole. (2). A nlsjerity Of the Presby.
teries seem to con-ider fraternsl relations
contaminated on the basis proposed By the at
iantd Assembly,
Whistler this Interpretation ia true or not
this Assembly does not say. Your almost
unanimous act of yesterday simply r, cites
these seeming facts OF his DRY without COM
uent. This Assembly asks NO one to approve
or rejoice over the Atlanta action. 1t recog-
uizes the right of the Presbyteries, and OF
all, to thin, interpret, and feel for Them
selves. While several Presbyteries protest
against the Atlanta action as a surrender of
principle, ard ask US TO reverse or modify,
and while several Presbyteries inform the As
semoly Of their approval, yet not a single
Pfesoytery asks this Assembly by ofica al
declaration TO approve the Atlanta action.
We do not offer ourselves ss volunteer pro1.
les, shouting au3 clsppiug hands uua.ked.
and requesting the Church TO clap and shout
with Us. No, sir; this Assembly, planting
itself on the broad central principle of the
supremacy OF majority oil the Presbyte-
rIts, bows revsrently 10 what seems to be the
choice OF this supreme power. Whether the
Pres 2yterles have failed to dsapprove the
Atlanta act from = mere Unwilliagress to
antagoaize the Assembly, or because really
siiisfisd, ia quite another thing, and is not a
question before u.s. We do no. interpret
their full meaning. We merely record Gan
apparent fact, based upon the evidence Of .
minority of the Presbyteries."
FIrSt.-In voting for the paper which recites
these facts my heart and hand unite in saying
they are history which a majority of the
Presbytsries seem to think it would be uu-
wise to disturb" bow TO history. L have
been greatly dissatisfied with the Atlanta &C.
ton, because think it iuvolysd surrender
of truth on our part, and not because 1 was
opposed irreconcilabiy TO fraternal relations
on honorable terms. While nay person al
view remains unchanged that the Atlanta
proposal was seriously modified by the
johnson pre6x," yet if l, in dead earnest, ID
honesty OF heart and purpose, shaathe nv
sword, and shield myself behind the Presby-
ttries, agreeing not TO disturb an apparent
ict of history, because a majority of the
Presbyteries think it would be ineIpedieat
aud uawise, what right has anyone to say
that l, and those who stand with me, are at
tempting TO destroy or discontinue fraterna al
relations? The mode, sir. of conducting
fraternal relations, and that only, ia the
question before US.
Second.-Again: The friends OF the commit.
tees report are put IN false position by The
charge that correspondence by letter would
be discourteous to the Northern Church.
DR.. Bullock, unintentionally, l am sure, put
Us In this false position. L honor and ad.
mire his fue genllemanly instincts, and
culture, yet in his z.al to have correspond
ence conducted by delegates he unconsciousiy
intimates that his opponents are discourteons
and iusincere. know he is too perfect
gentleman TO wrong US knowingly. This
argument is very adroit, and looks like foe
strategy. 1t is an argumentum I'D hominen;
for, addressed 10 Southern men, it appeals to
one OF the highest instincts, and one Of the
most prominent traits Of Southern charactsr.
They are very sensitive to such appeals,
characterized as they are by that incompar-
ably hne dellcacy as to personal honor,
NcuCiOsity, 10
others. Yes, Mr.. Moderator, the argument ia
strong and subtle. 1t is an honor 10 the men
10 whom it is addressed, ana 10 DR.. Bullock.
who makes it. The very presentation of
such an argument TO this Assembly proves th at
the Southern Church is incapable of dis.
1hird.-Again: 1t is said tn at correspond.
ence by letter implies insincerity, unfriend-
liness and bitterness of personal feeling
toward the Northern Church. Sir, feeling
Of impatience arises in my mind at the az.
sumption of superior charity, magnanimity
and love of peace which underlies this argu-
ment. 1t virtually means: ~ am holisr
han thou" am heartily sick of these as
of superiority as to good will and
Christian charity that are Fresupposed in
he solemn lectures and rebukes administered
o us for osr bitter feelings and unfratsrnal
pirit. 1t ia not a question of feeling, and
FEVER has been. Opposition to "fraternal
citations" has never been based on bitter per-
onsl feeling toward the Northern Church
r people. We have always been willing
o zee them established on terms consis-
ept with our loyalty to principle.
n New DREAMS, where We have
aest openly and unsparingly criticised the
atlanta action, church members are received
,ou asSsfz7 asszs to the churches North