Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-05-30
BRIGGS GOES DOWN,
The Assembly Finally Adopts
the Report for His Veto
by a Big Majority,
INSURING HIS WATERLOO.
Only so Votes Cast in His Favor,
With 44O Against Him.
STRONG PLEAS IN HIS BEHALF
By Leading DivineS and Efforts at Com
promise We're Useless.
INSURING HIS WATERLOO.
STRONG PLEAS IN HIS BEHALF
INTENSE EXCITEMENT OVER THE BALLOT
ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DIsrArcH.l J


suit shows an overwhelming defeat for him.
BY very large majority the Assembly de,
cided to adopt the report and resolutions
submitted by DR. Patton's committee, rec
ommending the vetoing ofthe appointment Of
Prof Briggs to the Chair of Theology in
Union Theological Seminary.
A murky morning, drilling rain and
the shadow of death produced an apparent
suppression and solemnity in the Assembly
to-day. Dr. Vermilea was heard as the
corresponding delegate from the Dutch Re
formed Church, and Moderator Green re-
sponded gracefully. The Briggs question
came up promptly and the Rev. Grail
P. Hathaway, of New Jersey, who figured
prominently a few years ago in the Talmage
case, addressed the Assembly in favor of
adopting disapproval for the present.
He opposed conformity to technicality at
the peril of the Church. He thought the
report was framed to catch all possible
votes. Some could not understand it on
the ground of heresy, others on the ground
of infelicity. He thought if time were
given DIR. Briggs, who now knew the mind
of the Church, he would probably do better
in the future. If it be possible for DR.
Briggs TO destroy the Bible, he said, he
wanted it destroyed.
Samuel Boyden, of New York, insisted it
was a question of conforming to the Ian
guage of the compact and demanded obedi-
ence to technicality, and the Assembly must
not be confused by the proposition for
temporary action. Disapproval for the
present would practically mean to ap-
prove. No Supreme Court would think of
reversing the decision of lower court for
the present
Opposed to Any Temporizing.
Colonel John j. McCook, of New York,
earnestly advocated the original report and
was emphatically opposed to temporary ac-
tion. He gave detailed historical sketch
of the origin and construction of the COM
pact between the General Assembly and the
Union Theological Seminary. The Union
Seminary trustees have no notion of carry
ing the case into the civil courts. The
compact with the Union Seminary is the
same as with all the Is seminaries of the
Church.
At this point there was great excitement
and confusion. Twenty men wanted the
floor Men anxious to speak crowded upon
the platform and got advantage of the COM
missioners on the floor in getting the ear of
the Moderator. DR.. Logan did this in the
face of protest and motion to limit his
time. There were calls for question, but
his amendment to insert the word, "For the |
present" throwing no new light on the sub
ject.
The impatience of the Assembly was very
decided, and only the persistence of the
speakers kept the Assembly from a vote
The calls for question were repeated, eSpeci-
ally during DR.. Logan's speech. A COM
missioner called ont: "What is the point
the brother is coming TOP" DR.. Ramsey, of
New York, in favor of prosecuting Briggs
and his uncompromising opponent, was
utterly opposed to the original report and
TO the amendment. He questioned the con-
stitutional right of the Assembly to exercise
the right proposed, as he believed the ques-
tion must first be settled by the Presby-
teries.
Standing Up for Briggs.
The proposed action infringed on the
right of the individual. Briggs is not. here
and the directors of Union Seminary asked |
DT. Briggs to get up the shortest catechism,
which he did do, and which would be re-
ceived by the Assembly as all right from
any other man. 1t was wrong TO go back |
and interpret that catechism in the light of !
the inaugural, said DR.. Ramsay. The |
Union Seminary trustees have been utterly |
ignored. He wanted DR.. Briggs to have a
fair chance
DR.. Worcester, of Chicago, offered as a |
substitute for the previous papers resolu- |
tion to the effect that in view of all the cir |
cumstances of the case, the Assembly |
should appoint committee of Is to consider |
the relation of Union Seminary to the |
Assembly; to have a conference with the |
directory of the Seminary and to advise |
them to reconsider their action in transfer |
ring DR.. Briggs from another chair to the |
one he now occupies, and in any case advise |
fbay1, rn har-a nr Rricrc NJ M 70 raoab for
year.
DIR. Worcester said the action proposed |
bv DR.. Patton's committee was the very |
worst and utmost the Assembly could do |
He wanted action in the interest of peace.
He regarded the report as cruel and arbi-
trary. The committee gave no reasons, be-
cause they thought no reason could be given
which would carry the Assembly with it.
A Case of Suspicion.
The only reason intimated was that DR..
Briggs was under suspicion, but the Assem-
bly, should stand by man under such cir
cumstances, especially as judicial proceed
ings have already been inaugurated in the
New York Presbytery. The Union Semi
nary trustees feel pained at the manifest
haste Of the Assembly to rush to action. AS |
the Presbyterian Church had erred often in
the past, so it might err now. There was no
danger of erring in acting deliberately. A
divine voice urges to keep the unity of the
spirit in the bond of peace
The hour of the noon recess was occupied
in earnest discussion of the Worcester sub
stitute. Drs. Patton and Parkhurst had
their heads together and earnestly con-
sidered the situation When the Assembly
DR.. MclIibbin, of Cincinnati,
took the platform and said the PRESBYTERIAN
Church was face to face with the greatest
issue of its history. 1t is serious matter
for any man to shake the confidence of peo-
pie in the Bible, and the testimony of 65
presbyteries is that the utterances of DR..
Briggs have done that thing. Mothers have
wept over these utterances, and if this As
sembly, knowing this, does not veto that
election it will be understood as virtually
his work. Presbyterianism can
fight, forgive and then make up. If no dis
approval be expressed, every presbytery
will have to judge as to the orthodoxy OF its
own Gcentates.
Arguing for Veto.
He would say, save Dr.. Briggs from his
friends. The idea of the President of the
United States vetoing bill ''for the pres
ent' is ridiculous The paper of DR.. Wor-
cester put DIR. Briggs under the ban. The
Union Seminary trustees have been trying
DIR. Briggs and they claim they are salts
fed. The Theological Seminary Committee
were DR.. Briggs best friends, all ofssohe
mind, but they saw no alternative.
Martineau knows no Christ, yet DR.. Briggs
ndorses him. Such teaching is bad, and
-he only course for the Assembly is to veto
.he election.
In the face Of loud and long-continued