Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-01-26
NOT SILENCED YET.
Criticism of the Action of the Re.
formed Presbyterian Church.
REV. MR.. REED In HIS OWN BEHALF
How the Present Liberal Movement Was
Originally Started.
BROUGHrABOUT BY EFFORTS FOR UNION
ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE prsp pArcH., Z,

the recent trial and suspension of Rev. H.
w. Reed, of this city, and his associates by
the Pittsburg Presbyterv of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, for holding that the
church had no right to refuse membership
to man who insisted upon his right to vote
and hold office, has attracted considerable
attention.
Mr.. Reed has studiously declined to fur
nish anything for publication regarding his
position in this matter, until satisfied now
| that in justice to himself and those who sup
ported him he should break the silence. In
response to letter forwarded by Rev. Mr..
Reed to the Hon. Andrew White, President
of Cornell University, he received the fol-
| lowing:
President Whites Sympathies.
My sympathies are strongly with you in this
! contest for what seems to me not only Chris
tianity, but plain common sense. There is no
doubt in my mind that you and your associates
| other side may gain nominally.
The Rev. Mr.. Reed furnishes the follow
ing as defining his position in the con-
| troversy:
The Liberal movement in the Reformed Pres
| Dyterlan Church. as represented by the pro-
moters of the East End platform, does not
l
established principles or practices of the
church. but is the result of the study of these
| principles and practices by thinking. conscien-
| t1ous men. So far as the present liberal move
| ment is concerned, it had its origin and devel-
| opment in negotiations for union between vari-
GUS psalm-singing denominations. There have
Deen various propositions for union of these
churches from time to tlme. The last series of
these began in 1887. by an overture to the Re-
| formed Presbyterian Synod from the United
Presbyterian General Assembly. The Re-
| formed Presbyterian Synod responded to this
overture by appointing committee or union
| to confer with a similar committee from the
United Presbyterian General Assembly
Why Union Is Not Accomplished.
These committees met as directed and re-
ported to their appointing bodies in 1888. The
| report to the Reformed Presbyterian Synod
| stated that the two churches held the same
| application of one. namely, the kingship of
Christ over the nations of the earth, by prac-
tical political dissent from the United States
Constitution of civil government, and because
| OF this difference in practlce the union OF the
| two churches could not at this time be ac-
| complished. This report was unanimously ap-
| proved by the Reformed Presbyterian Synod,
which adopted several resolutions reaffirming
the duty of political dissent
Though the report was unanimously approved,
yet there were some who doubted the propriety
| of allowing political dissent from the United
States Government to keep separate two
| churches that ought to be:one. These doubts
save in the utrerances of certain conservative
| men which showed that they did not regard all
| their brethren as sound and faithful to the
| principles and practices of the church. These
| suspicious found expression in the offering of
resolution to condemn certain articles that
had been published in Our Banner. The ed
itor the Rev. j. Z. X. Milligan, disclaimed the
| Interpretation put upon these articles. his
statement was accepted and the resolution
withdrawn. though ordered to be published in
the minutes of Synod. This action set some
mon fn inI-i inn o,ds sfr,sIu uin
Another Effort at Union.
AT this same meeting of Synod in 1855 an
| overture for union was received from the Re-
| formed Presbyterian General Synod. This
General Synod is the highest court of the new
| school Reformed Presbyterian Church. In re-
J sponse to this overture, committee to confer
with similar COMMITTEES from the General
Synod on the union of the two churches was
| appointed. These committees reported in 1883,
and recommended that these negotiations be
continued, and SO new committees on confer
ence were appointed.
The Reformed Presbyterian Synod of 1888
decided that 1t was consistent with the prin-
ciples of the church for her members to vote
| on the question of constitutional amendments.
| This acton was not unanimous. Some of the
minority felt that ii they could commune with
| those who voted for amendment, they could
also commune with those who voted for officers
| to enforce these amendments. Hence, the con-
ference of the committees OF the two churches
Oh union had fresh interes; given to them and
| the committees of the General Synod had fresh
encouragement to- believe that the union of
the two bodies could now be effected. The
committee of General Synod proposed
| as a basis of union the testimony
of the od-school Synod, the terms of
before the division of 1888, and the covenant of
| 1871, provided they were allowed to interpret
the phrase incorporate by any act, with The
political body" as meaning sinful compliance
with the religious defects of the United States
Constitution. The committee of Synod agreed
to the basis as proposed except the explanation
insisted that voting and holding office under
the United States Government were sinful
complianccs with the religious defects of its
Constitution. Thus the explanation of GER
tain phrase in the covenant of 1871 prevented
the union of the two Reformed Presbyterian
Churches.
The Minority Misrepresented.
The report of the committee on union was
submitted to the Synod in 1897 The motion to
approve the report was debated three and a
half days and adopted by vote of 100 to H.
The arguments of the majority were reason
tradition, custom, philosophy and the historical
position and authority of the church. The
arguments of the minority were Scripture and
the constitutional law of the church.
The minority were not only defeated but also
msrepresented. They were called heretics
covenant breakers, Violaters of ministerial
VOWS. and pursuers of divisive courses They
were said to be unfaithful to the church. and
wearied of witnessing for the truth. They
were told that if they believed so-and-so they
ought to leave the church, and the sooner
they left the better. They were threatened
with non-payment of salary; even starye
them into recantation, leave the church.
They were looked upon with suspicion and dis
trust. Accordingly they held meeting in the
East End church on July ID. 1890. to determine
what course they should take. They met with
out formal call or programme. Much time was
spent asking God to direct them as to the
wisest and most faithful course. After a pray
erful deliberation. they decided to publish the
East End Platform
The Elders Convention.
This platform stirred up a breeze. A call for
was published. This call ruisrepresented the
purpose OF those who published the East End
platform. This elders convention was held on
August u. 1890. and the language of the dis
cussion that of The dissecting table but
not that of Christ. This convention sent up
report of its meeting TO the Pittsburs Presby-
terry. Memorials from several congregations
also came up to the Preshytery. This Presby-
terry met on October a. 1890. Then papers were
read and referred to the Committee on Dis.
cipiine.
This committee did not investigate the mis-.
representation OF which the minority com.
planned, but recommended such a course of
action as led to the trial and suspension OF
seven ministers. These seven belonged to the
minority. They adhere the constitutional
law of the church and to the Scriptures. BY
miSrepreseDtatons of the ministrys position
and adherence TO the: traditions and command
ments OF men were these seven condemned.
Differences Between the Two Parties.
Regarding the points of difference be-
tween the parties, Rev. Mr.. Reed said:
The cardinal principle of the Covenanter
Church is that the Bible is the wcrd of God