The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1888-01-29
Pittsburgh versus Cincinnati.
IN. Y. Evsnge'ist.)

cent pTonunclon1ent0 from the conspicu-
Gus Presbyte. y OF Cincinnati. What many
others think OF it is significantly indi-
Gated in the following report, clipped
from a Pittsburgh paper:
a rather interesting discussion en-
the question of the reunion with South
ern PresbYterans, occupied the session
of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh which
met at the Second Presbyterian Church
this morning
The question came up on motion to
appoint committee to consider a min
ute from the Presbytery of Cincinnati on
the matter.
The Presbytery of Cincinnati at re-
cent seeeion adopted resolution declar-
ing in favor of color line, or in other
words, in event of reunion, iavoring the
formation of the colored CT urches into
one Preebytery. The resolution was in
PRODUCED by the Rev. George P. Hays,
formerly of this city, now pastor of the
Fret Presbyterian Church of that city.
The step caused considerable surprise
Many claim hat it was premature, as
committee to consider the matter bad
been appointed at the last General As.
sembly, with instructions to report at the
May meeting. This morning the Rev.
Mr.. McKibben brought the question be-
tore the Presbytery by motion to APP
point committee. 1t was the signal for
an animated discussion. The opponents
would not enter into general discussion
OF the merits of the question, but insisted
that the action of the Presbytery of Gin
clnnati was an SmpeTtinence, In view of
the General Assemblys action. They
thought it would be time enough to wait
until the General Assembly had placed
the matter before the Presbvteries.
The Rev Drs. Jackson, Purvis, Chalf-
ant, Holland and others spoke against the
motion, while Rev. Drs. Douglas, Kirk,
McKibben, and McClelland advocated
its adoption. DR.. McClelland said color
line would eventually assert itself.
The opponents carried the day. On
vote, the motion was defeated by 90 to
%"
To this we append an extract from
letter-one among many of like tenor
received from one who knows the South
as well as any man in our Church, who
is exceptionally qualified by peculiar ex-
perience to express a judgment on the
proposal which the Preebytery of Pitts
burgh has thus refused to consider.
Among other thinge, the writer says:
l regard the action OF the Presbytery
of Cincinnati as anlUi8e The negroes
will no doubt do better In churches and
schools, and after awhile, in Presbyteries
of their own But when they come to
know and teel that we want 10 place
lheod n oTgaoisatiCne oi their own, be
cause they are colored people, we shall at
once lose our hold on them and our In
Auence over them. Tley are much more
shrewd than is generally thought; and
any compromise along the color line. any
plan to meet the prejudices of Southern
men against sitting In Presbyterles with
them, they will be quick to discover. II
our Church could only be qOi8e enough to
be staUi Union with the South now ION
any such terms) will be at the sacrifice of
our work among the freedmen. 1t is all
nonsense for men who make flying trips
through the South, to pretend to give us
the actual sentiment of the South toward
that work"
These are weighty words, and they
come from one who knows whereof he
speaks. We leave them to make their
own impression. II the leaders in this
new movement fancy that they have con-
verted the Church, or any large part of
it, to their revolutionary notion, they are
grievously mistaken. And we are not
speaking impetuously or recklessly here.
as the Herald and Pres6yter does when
it says that there are not ten ministers
in our Church who have any lear" re.
specting present union, in view of the
unfraternal assumptions and demands of
the Open Letter aud OF the circle of the
ologiane whom that document represents
We know that there are scores of both
ministers and laymen in whose breast
the allegations OF that letter, and the
singular silence of certain parties in the
North representing them, have excited
the gravest apprehensions Nothing is
gained for any good cause by such
sweeping afirmations which cannot DOS
sibly be based on actual knowledge, and
which in fact tend ultimately to awaken
general distrust of those who make
them. IT in any court a man declares
that he knows what from the nature OF
the case he cannot know, bis testimony
as to what he really does know is apt to
be suspected by both Judge and Jury.