The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-05-09
EXTRACT FROM COL. YoUNG,s LETTER.

Col Bennett IL. Young has written a third letter
to Dr. F. R. Beattie concerning his position and the
utterances of the Christian Observer the subject
under discussion. DR.. Beattie undertook to explain
certain extracts which Col Young had made from an
article in the COmier-JourndI of August, 1903 and
which it was claimed showed that DR.. Beattie add
vocating Organic Union at that time At Col Young's
request we publish much of his third letter as
bears Dr. Beattes position stated the article
referred to. He says:
Again and again in this discussion you protest
your loyalty to the Southern Church, out there is
such thing protesting too much. You are the
only leader your side that this protesting
process. Everybody knows where DIR. Neel stands
where the Standard aligns, or what is DIR. Hover
toms position. These need neither diagram pro-
test. They straightforward, outspoken and in
the open field
The trouble in your case is that you say you are
for thing and argue for another. When you com
planned that l charged you with disloyalty to the
Southern Church, and [ accepted your chal-
lenge and proved it by your words
you again denied that you had ever ad
vocated organic union, and then went into
elaborate argument of many paragraphs to demon
strate that the Northern Church was both sincere
and right and the Southern Church narrow and
bgoted and touched with "vain Pharseesm, filled
with passion and prejudice misinterpretng and dis
honoring its great fathers and fighting against God
In all these words there sentence of com
mendation praise of the Southern Church. but, on
the other hand, magnifcation for the Northern
Church.
Your so-called loyalty to the Southern Church
might you from the charge of treason in a po
litical trial, where mere words cannot subject
person to the pain and penalties for that offence but
in the church of Jesus Christ words be treason
to the great head of the church. If you deny Chrsts
divinity you none of his blasphemy of the Holy
Ghost is an objectionable sin, and Peter
mtted overt act; he only denied that he had ever
known the Savior and finally emphasized it with
oath These comparisons are made in no offensive
unknd sense, only to show that in dealing with
church matters words both important and some
times conclusive.
made nine quotations from the Christian OBJ
and from your CouierJourndI interview
show that you have advocated and do advocate
ganic union. The grouping of these quotations was
not due to carelessness. They fair and inten-
tonally arranged printed. Two of the Courier
journal quotations from the part which
express statements of yours The effect of these you
cannot evade l have consulted the reporter to whom
you made the statements of the interview and he
authorizes to say that you responsible for
that which appeared in the article. lie is not only
young of high character, but a Presbyterian,
and says he only put in what you said, and that
what he wrote substantially what you impaired.
Not only this, but two days after the interview,
with great surprise, and under deep feeling of dis
tress, your attention called to the statements in
it by of the most learned and distinguished min
listers in Kentucky, and you urged to correct
the statements i'm this article, and you refused to
do it, 1t must not be forgotten that you have allowed
the statement i'm the COuricr-JOuuat which com
mitted you absolutely to organic union to stand
contradicted for two years and eight months and
to endeavor TO crawl out from under its
quences by putting the blame the reporter will
srike the public to say the least out Of the usual
run. You knew what the article contained; you
knew the Interpretation put ON its language; you
were advised that it put you in false light in view
of your assurance pledges and promises concerning
the Southern Presbyterian Church. and yet you pake