The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-05-09
MAY 8.

be taken to is that 1 expressed the opinion
that these movements in Kentucky showed that many
who opposed to cooperation in educational
work few years ago had changed their minds, and
that the two branches of the Church in Kentucky
closer together than at any time since the
war; and that the time might when they would
be again. Surely to report such a judgment
upon existing conditions in way implies that l
advocating organic union at that time,
in favor of it. L may add that firmly believe
that the consolidation of the educational institutions
in Kentucky has not only been great boon to both
branches of the Church, but that it has quieed agi
tation for organic union which would surely have
arisen had this consolidation not been effected VI
course, cannot expect my critic to share in this
opinion for he is still of the very few in Ken
lucky not in sympathy with this work, ana conse-
quently not really loyal to it.
L constrained to add word in regard to the
conditions of loyalty to the Southern Church. My
critic and those who agree with him make loyalty
to the Southern Church to consist in inhexible
opposition to any sort of closer relations with other
Presbyterian bodies, especially the Northern Presby
terrain Church According to this remarkable test it
comes to pass that if a honestly believes that
the time has come to consider whether the Pres6y-
terrain Churches cannot be effective by coming
into closer relations with each other he is charged
with disloyalty to his Church and with hosting the
flag of surrender. Against this whole temper l
enter my solemn protest 1t is alike Pharisaic and
unjust. Two equally clear headed and equally
devoted to Chrsts Kingdom and own Church
may take opposite sides upon these debatable ques-
tions. That they should do ought not to
pose either of them to the charge of dsloyalty To
make this charge is to confess that reasons are
wanting and to put personalities in the place of
discussion. make this protest with all earnest
have said more than intended when T beoor
TINS reply. L hope l have made my position undar
stood. am Southern Presbyterian by adoption
eighteen years ago, and by conviction ever since
trust Ihat have the true spirit of Presbyteriansm
which has always been definite but never narrow and
unwilling to look at all sides of any subject am
Jealous for the prosperity and wider usefulness of
our Church. and L have no idea of making any di-
Vsloh In her ranks. But Church has come to n
new generation, and to new conditions to which ,vo
dare not be indifferent In view of the changed con-
dltons coming over the South in many WAYS in
view of the fact that many people are coming from
the North to the South, and because of the Climber
land Union, which will put the Northern Church
INTO so much of Southern Territory we are
bound to recognize the facts of Providence and act
wisely. cannot believe that in existing conditions
the policy of isolation is wise or safe / cannot adj
Vocate the organic union of the Churches North
and South. am in favor of the principle of fed
eratlVe cooperation among all Presbyterian Churches
as set forth in the ARTICLES of Agreement" pro-
posed by the Charlotte Conference This and this
alone is the only question before our Church for con-
sideration. Hence when my critic talks and talks
about organic union, he is raising a false issue and
setting up "man of straw" Let us be fair; let us
be candid; let believe in each others fidelity even
though may differ in regard to some things
Let us not be timid, but courageous to meet the
problems which Church must face and solve Gin
the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace"
FRANCIS r. BEATT1E