Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-06-02
PRESBYTERIANS.
The Question Of Fraternal Relations Is
1t Was Discussed and Settled by
the Southern Church..
The Action Of the Minsrity-Speech Of
the Rev. ]. William Finn, Of
New Orleans.
To the Editors Of the Appeal:

~ tue EulOOib Oh IEe Appear
The question of frateraal relations came
before the General Assembly Of the Southern
Presbyterian Church during its recent session
ct lexington, Ky, in two forms:
FiJst-Ssvsrzl or the Presby,eries teIi.y.
lag hat Tue "Herrick Joh o,on prefix" had 40
seriously modified The concuirrut resolu ion
III = h A'lznts Assembly compromis d the
Southern Cnufch in accep lag ffa'ernai fela-
tons on that b ,sis az perfectly Iisfsc-
'Ory," asked the lexington Assembly to re-
ver-e or modify the Atlanta action. The
Assembly in declining to do this was inhu-
snced BY two considerations: ~. The appar-
ent mind Of a majority of the Church 10 APP
proving the object aimed al by the Atlanta
Assembly, and majority OF the Presbyteries
either approving or declinisg to antsgonjzs
the Atlslta Assembly. ~. Tsers was gen.r.
al SUPPOSE ion that the Northern Assembly at
Saratoga, knowing tn at many OF cur brethren
felt wounded and dissatisfied, would vita.
draw and cancel the disturbing prefix. Thia
ssems to have been done; if so, the grounds
OF objection have been practically removed.
Had this been done at FIRST no classification
would have been felt.
Secoad-Eight Prsabyteries overturned the
Assembly TO conduct all correspondence by
letter. This was the only form in which the
| subj ct elected any discussion. The vote
vac nearly unanimous, for the reasons given
| ,bove, on the subject in its first form. A
vote On Inc frat form-"Sbsll correspondence
be BIZ letter or by delsgate.?"-wss DOT
| eached at all, Tor after a days discussion Il
compromise paper, introduced by Prot.
| HsmphiIl, was adopted, providing that all
| correspondence should be by letter, except
| that one more delegation should be sent to
the Dutch Reformed and to the Northern
| Presbyterian Churches, informing them OF
our plan snd asking their cooperation, and
| calling the attention Of our Presbyteries to
NJ ere al least half dozen
men on both sides in The Assembly who had
similar paper TO efIer. Both sides were
| claiming the victory; yet these numerous
and identical compromises indicated some
mutual fear TO test the matter by q vote. If,
a some thought, Prof. Hemphill N ade a
blunder IN oh-ripg the compromise, il can
be said in his defense that be thought it
would produce uisnimiIy; and it was a
olunder which some her msn would have
,nsde had he obtained the floor ahead of
him.
No further debate ensusd after The substi.
tute was presented. About twenty voted
sgsinst il. Notice Of protest Was given, but
BY unanimous consent of the Assembly tho
protest was recorded in the form Of are.sous
Tor votiog nj" ten signing them. Oilers
1 WOut0 haNc u0tc " y 81 tury DcGI present
The reasons Tor voting against The substitute
were as follows:
l. The adoption Of the substitute is %.
| necessary to prevent misconcsptiou. The
| sea OF the Southern Church are above sus-
| picion.
2. 1t bases the Assemb'y's action on a
wrong principle, as 1t seems 10 condition our
| course Oh the cooperation of the Northern
| Cuurch.
| 8 Il is not in harmony with the policy Of
| our Church, settled or The New Orleans As.
sembly 10 1877, that correspondence should
be by letter. The sending of the Atlsnti
| delegation was understood 10 be the siugle
exception 10 the rule.
1t continues the agitation OF this whole
subject by inviting discussion in the Presby.
teries.
Inc above protest was signed BY the Rev.
]. William Finn, of New Orleans; M.ssrs.
J. Adger SmyIh, OF Charleston; w. R Ly-
man, Of New Orleans; D. w. Aiken, OF
Soulh Csrolin,; the Revs. J. P. Common, of
North Carolina; Gillond, of Soutu CAROLYN /;
A. X Banks, Of Louisiana; Aessrs. Pipes,
OF Louisisus, and Hutchinson, Of Mis.is,ip pi.
An examinations of these reasons will
show that no spirit of ca Ptious opposition or
bitterness iuhlenced the gentlemen who
urged them. l. is due 10 them and To all
parties concerned that their exact position
| should be known 10 the Church North and
| South, for doubtless many of their Southern
| brethren iudorse their yiews-and / zee no
| reason why the Northern Church should CD
| ject to them. do not write TO provoke dis
cussion. ] hope strife and misunderstxnd.
| ing on this subject will cease. The trus
| spirit oil those VINO voted against the substi
tUte will be found in the speeches m ade by
some OF them on the proposal to conduct al
correspondence by l<t,er. No accurate re
ports of any of these speeches have appeared
in print. Several varying reports were giveu
none OF them were exact. While not
| committing any one TO every form of eI,
preston in my own speech, yet it represents
| substantially the sentiments of those who
siand with me. 1t gives the general spirit
| Of the position held BY all who voted "No'
90 the subssisute, add az far So I know IL Z.
| in harmony with the snimus of nearly all
| who favored correspondence by letter.
| give it as written pretty fully in shorthand
| and abreviations the evening before it wal
| delivered. Mine is given, NOT because it is a
better exposition Of our views, but because il
is more accessible. 1t was spoken about a.
| follows.