The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1877-03-13
THE PRESBYTERY.
YESTERDAY AFTERNOONS sEss1ol

| nation of Mr.. HALEY. The latter state d
that he knew OF no special rule in refer =
ence to the reception of Orthodox
Friends, and that there was no authorl-
| tatlVe published statement of the gov
ernment and polHy of Congregational
Churches ;thaL Council is not required
to organize a Church. There are two
ways: one is to call Council to decide
| IL 1t is best to organize it. Another
| way is for the Church TO form itself. and
| then ask Tor a fellowship.
| lie said it is very difficult to get q
| Presbyterian to understand Congrega-
tlonalism.
Rev. Mr.. s. Fl. Lee testified that he
had read the basis OF organ Zation of the
| Mt. Lookout Church, ami thought it
would be received into fellowship as a
| Congregational church to be organized
| by tue members; that the Home Mission
arrangement might be based on the rec
ognltiOn OF the common CalVinism of the
two Churches. Congregationalism Ger.
taiHly regarded itself as Calvnis tic; {;
that he regarded the basis of union and
accompanying papers OF the Mt. Look
out Church as a Calvinistic paper, as
| tar as it went, though there was more In
CalVlnlSm than there was in the paper.
Rev. DR.. o. A. Hills testified that he
had known the defendant for ten years,
| and had often met him in weekly minis
ters' meeting, and had often heard him
express his views on doctrine.
Mr.. McCune asked if he ever heard
him deny any evangelical doctrine.
AT this point the PresDytery ad-
journed
THIS MORNINGS PROCEEDINGS.
The sixth days proceedings of the
Court in The trial OF Rev. W. q. McUune
began few minutes past 8 O'Clock this
morning, with Moderator Cushman in
the chair.
Rev. o. A. Hills, of the Central Church,
was placed on the stand and his exam
1natlon resumed.
Question by Mr.. McCune-Have you
heard the defendant deny the doctrine
that HfesDyterlan ministers receive?
Mr.. Hlls-l have not.
Mr.. McCuue-DOes the accused re-
celye the system OF doctrine contained
in the Confession?
Tue question was objected to by Mr..
Thompson.
MIR. McCune-The question is OF great
Importance to me, and hope, Mr.. Moder-
at0r, you Will rule as your predecessor
did in former instance.
MIR. ThompsOn-You couldn't ask a
witness i'll a civil case the state of mind
OF the accused for whom or against
whom he is testifylng. There is no
charge That Mr.. McCune has never re-
celVed the doctrine, but that in certain
instances he has gwen utterance to
sentiments in direct opposition TO the
doctrine contained in the Con
fesson. He is accused Of
disloyalty to the Church in certain
charges and specifications. No doubt
the accused can bring hundreds of
brethren here who can say that they
never heard him utter sentiments in |
contrayention to the tenets of our doc |
trine, but that does not say that he is |
not guilty Vi the charges brougut
against him.
Mr.. Skinner-IR the accused has the |
right to bring in witnesses here who |
never heard him say anything disloyal, |
why then the day of judgment will have |
arrived before this case Is ended.
Mr.. McCune-The prosecution has |
raised an issue that does not touch the |
case. You have not proved in the speci- |
tications that have not received the sys- |
tenn of doctrine that Presby yterian min |
lister is required to receive. l am seek
ing to prove that did receive it and do |
receive it up to this hour, and hope the |
question will be allowed.
Moderator-It is the opinion of the |
Moderator that the accused should ad-
duee his testimony under the specifica-
t1ons. The question, i'll my opinion, is
not proper one.
Rev. DR.. Humphries here relieved
Moderator Cushman, and took theIchair, |
Question by Mr.. McCune-Is the the
ology of the accused Socinan, Pelogan,
Arian, or Calvanistic?
Question ruled out as being too gen.
eral.
BY Mr.. McCune-Did common fame
charge the accused with disloyalty to
the Presbyterian Church before DIR.
Skinner began to write newspaper arti-
cles and pamphlets concerning the ac-
cused2
Ruled out.
Question by Mr.McCune-Did common
fame charge the accused with dIsloy-
atty to the Presbyterian Church before
the meeting of the Council at LinWool |
in December, 1915?
Objected 10 by Mr.. Skinner, who
couldn't see what it would amount to.
Mr.. MeCune-l want to prove that
there was no charge OF disloyalty
against me before that time. IL amount,
10 good deal to me.
The Moderator stated that he would
rule out all questions in reference to {
common fame.
The prosecution, after some discus
sion, withdrew their objections to such
questions, and the examination pro-
ceeded.
MIR. Hills-No sir, 1 do not. There {
we're articles in the paper about that
lime. l DON'T think they constituted i,
what is common fame.
DIR. Skinner-Do you know of any facts $
showing disloyalty to the Presbyterian /
Church before the month of June, 1875? '
Mr.. Hills-No, sir, L do not.
Cross-eXamined by DR.. Skinner-Do
you know anything as regards the cir. = J
;ulation of the Herald and Presbyter?
BY Mr.. Skinner-Did you vote for the | /
appointment Of this Investigating Com 1
nittee?
Mr.. Hills-I did not; l was not there.
Would not have hesitated TO vote SO ii | | e
thought it right.
DIR. Skinner-Did you read Mr.. INC. s
2une's letter to DIR. MontIort, written in |
,he year 1875?
Hills-I did. l would not consider the d
contents OF that letter as establishing I
he question of common fame OF disloy-
llty. c
Question by Mr.. Ledyard-H you
ri l,.f 1 4