Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-05-29
Professor Smiths Plea In pchalf OF
the Accused Minister aud
Divine.
PROMPT AND DECIDED ACTOR
DEMANDED.
Judge Breckenridge Addresses the
Assembly, Pals 10 the Floor
aud Dies.
ny Telegraph to tho Ngwsi
THE ugIg.s CASE.
discussion of the Commuters Report
heath OF % Delegate.

bllltbilf why s1s-i loltrthi 1lllltli
Of the Lane Theological seminary said;
"Ihe proposition 10 terminate tho use.
fllnufr Of minister should he dis
cussei carefully. Whatever the com.
mltice may FAY, no doubt consclcn.
tiously, II will be inferred that d.
Briggs j. guilty of some oilensc. We
shall titus cast feprnach on his good
name and good school, already
stricken lg God, will be- crippled foT at
least the Immediate future. Thk Is
reason for caution. | know my slide Il
unpopular, therefore hear me candidly
anu patiently, M try TO show that thu
committee have erred;
"Flrst, II ia doub,iul whether such
an assembly IL sblo 10 judge Of other
than ductrinal qualifications. Dr.
Bfiggs II not n new man. lie was
elected seventeen years ago, | think, 10
chair In the Union Theological temi.
nary. Many Of his colleagues nni
studente sny that he Is n man Of ability
and scholarship, On able teacher, spirit.
uAi and pious. This assembly, to whom
hu Il "a stranger ought not 10 lie In
haste. The Prcsbyteriaus ask ua 10
act In wisdom In the premises. May
not this be TO continue hint Tho ar.
rumenis against him are tive:
"Onc-Hc l. misunderstood.
"rwo-rhat he Is moi sound Ia doc.
trine.
at Ia said that In quarrrla both sides
are wrong. Why not In misuniOT-
standing? ] have watched tho contru.
yer-y from tho frst, because I have
lad more interest than most. The al.
most omnip0tent religious press goes
iuto all our homes. Their editors
magnify their influence. II Ia held 10
lie nearly lniallible. Has II not biased
tho commissioners? | desire TO say
nothing against theae editors, hut are
they qualified for this? Even re.
llgious editor cannot bc n specialist In
all departments, and In liable TO err.
II may bo that they have misunier.
stood Dr. Briggs.
"rhe second charge, that he 10 un.
sound, may he based upon mis-
understanding. Some any ho endorse-
the spiritual condition u MartineaU.
II DR.. Briggs can historically Justify
his position he hns right 10 hold II.
My last point In that man must be-
proved unsound after n careful trial, II
need be- In all the church courts, but IN
n case like this the man II, II charged
with unsounInets, considered un.
sound from the first. don't se. that
his Ideas OF tho Bible, redemption
Of the race mud progressive sanclilca.
ton after death are not according 10
the standards on strict construction
Of the confession. or course, he ~
wrong, but will you, who mean 10
make such n radical change In our
confession as 10 FAY that all infants aTe
saved, not leave little margin for DIR.
Briggs"
Df. Logan Of Scranton, Pa, sug.
gested a modification OF the action
proposed by the committee. lie said;
al agree with them with these two
amendments:
"FiTst-The assembly disapprove.
for tie present the appointment, etc.
"5ec0nd-That committee VI eight
ministers ana seven ruling elders bc
appointed 10 confer with Professor
Briggs and the directors Of tho semi.
nary"
The latter he moved, and II was Sec
ondcd. Continuing, DR.. Logan said:
"Thc church asks: shall we not have
n word Of God that We can trusl?' W.
nro bound 10 say that We can't sustain
buk hbNthk iNlhhfN
TO confirm him, lot us walt before tax.
ing irretricvnblc action"
Charles A. Dickey, DID,, OF Phlla.
delphia, a member Of the board OF III.
rectors OF the Union Theological
Seminary, sail: 81 have no plea 10
make for Dir. Briggs, hut l will, II
stand alone, plead that my man shall
have fair play. | do mot defend his
4 .. Ia.
inaugural. | wish 10 AJAX only what Ia
eXpedlent, not In the sense Of covering
up or postponement, but what Ia best,
not merely lawful, In u time when the
strain Ia so severe and the situation No
delicate.
ave are told by this committee that
there Is but one reason that compelled
this honorable and faithful committee
10 nsk for this decided md irrevOcahlc
action. | know they would have
brought a proposition 10 walt II II
could be done. This Il the point. Can
we whit? Their only reason for In
sistlng ona veto now IN thar II must he
now or never. l Will presume TO differ
with even them. Has not this Rssem-
bly, the aane right 10 interpret com.
pact as the assembly Of 1871? They say
We losa the power OF veto n We DO not
exercise 1t now; yet suppose that we
have committee Of conference over.
turn this action after II " cohsum.
mated. Would Il not he better TO trust
In than 10 act irremedinbly and then
confer through c0mmitteeY"
Dr. Francis Of Cincinnati said: "rhe
PTesbyiories that have overturned the
assembly have not done M without de-
liberation. They discussed the matter
through weeks and months. 10 delay
viii risk more than the loss OF the
service Of one man or inJuring the
senslbilIties Of the trustees Of the
Union Theological Seminary. Almost
every pastor and minister worked
and voted against Dr. Smith. We
demand prompt aud decided action"
Judge breckenridge OF 81. Louis
stated tho legal points In tho case.
III we don't veto now" SAID he, I'VE
never eau. Lognn's amendment for
ueierring action IL impraclicablc. We
can DO nothing except disapprove.
About assigning other reasons, y docs
seem that the mind of the church has
becn anxious for some months, anu we
should relieve It,"
HreckiIridge's last words were'
NOW, gentlemen, feel that | have
discharged my duty and wish 10 be