Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-05-30

: The Briggs ease was then resumed ~
/ Rev. Israel w hathaway OF Jersey City,
{ who urged disapprol;i Of Briggs appoint.
men, for year. rather than permanently.
/ II the assembly diSspproveG tor Year T.
would give time for Sucu Investigation ae
WIS necessary lie pleaded. nov for D.
Briggs. but for the best int, rests OF the
church. The mission uI the church was -
save Il lost world: therefore 70 wou-d net
do things which would give the wOr.i
grounds for calling the church I'm u-t
Rev. q. BowdrI! of GenoSee. y. Y. SAID
? III" assembly mus, di-approNe, or Ie- the
appointment he confirmed by default. II
was
Sow OR NEVER
as to the veto If this assembly did not ap-
prove, the thing was finished no action
could be taken except that proposed in the
committee report The amendment of Dr
Logan delaying the veto uuliticu the re
/ port. and DR. Briggs appointment waS Sci
/ tied. The approval must not De allowed 10
creep on by iudirectiou.
Col. j. !. NlrCooi OF New York wanted
to burn il INTO the hearts of the commits
siOnerS that they had assembled to Goal
! with grave interests OF the church. They
had To render duty, not only 10 prc=byte-
TieS. bat 10 God He did not ike 10 see
cN-modcratOrS take the platform dad SAY
7 that thC assembly WIS not obligated by 1t
ton of any previous assembly. 1t they
performed IDelE UlIJA lutr O,rult ItD now
take any action which meant pOStpOncmeut.
Rev DR. hathaway has shown his opinion
of the Union by deciding to send his son To
| Princeton after he had arranged Tor him 1T
| the Union, rather than place him under the
influence Of Il man who attacked the Bible.
This brought out cries of shame"
shame. - and tie speaker sat down.
POWER To SUSPEND THE VETO.
Or. Logan, mover of the amendment
poStDOning the veto, made a speech il its
favor He held that the church had povvn.
DR.. Briggs was confirmed to-day, and 81 =
year he utterly denied The authority of the
Word of God--did they mean To assert that
there was no remedy for the assembly
This report was not only blow al DR..
Briggs. but mt the seminary iCrieS Of
mo, no" The report attacked the
| character of the board of directors, as well
. as that of DR.. Briggs. That was the reason
| he had presented mis- amendment
Rev. j. s. Ramsey of New York spoke
AGAINST the report. If the nations of the
world could arrange moduS viycudi at the
end of an extended treaty, why could not
this assembly He objected to the report
on the ground that lie doubted whethe the
assembly had the power, which II was 50
anxious and certain 10 exercise, Lefore il
had sent ii down to the presbyteries. and
| ne would like to know if any consentinc
would make such action constitutional. this
proposed action iufringed Oh the rights Of
Or. Briggs.
Rev J. H. Worcester of Chicago. pro-
posed a substitute for the report of the COM
miltee and the amendment OF Logan. 1t
read, That ina5much as the relations he
tween the Union college and the assembly
had grown out Of concessions of its rights,
certain things should be done" 1t provided
for the committee to confer with the dlrec-
tors OF the Union seminary as TO the rela-
tons OF the seminary to the assembly, 10
report next year, shat the directors be re
queSted to
EEsCIND TUE TRANSFER
of DR.. Briggs, aud that i'll any event Dr.
Briggs be not allowed to give instructions i'll
theology.
DR. Worcester spoke in favor of his sub
stitute, consuming the time up TO noon.
y recess was taken.
BRIGGS WANTS no COMPROMISE.
A dispatch was received to-day from DR..
Briggs by one Of his friends in the assem-
bly,, declaring the professor desired M
compromise on the part Of the assembly
he wanted the question decided categori-
cally.
AFTERNOON SESSION
Rev DR. McKibben of Cincinnati opened
the afternoon session. He said the assem-
forced upon the church. II was 4 serious
thing for man to strike al the foundations
of Z church. When eighty pres byterle~
were moved to ask the assembly 10 pas on
Dr. Briggs, the assembly could not escape
responsibility. Some cOntcuded DR.. Briggs
was sound. That had nothing to do with
the case. On his induction into Office he
had spoken in way to shake faith in the
fundamental truths OF the Bible. If the
assembly did not disapprove. II meant that
il would not interfere, no matter what at
tack was made on the Bible. If il should
disapprOve, and all was well on investiga-
ton, DR.. Briggs could be reelected. DR..
Briggs and his defenders should have
thought seriously before they thus iii
tJTbed the peace of the church. If the As
sembly by refusing TO disapprove Briggs
position allowed him 10 teach. how could
presbyterics refuse license students for
holding views which the assembly had neg
atively Endorsed.
The speaker stood for the acceptance Of
the report without compromise.
SPEAKER CAUSES CONFUSION.
Rev Ebcnezer Erskine OF Carlisle. Pa,
followed in a lengthy speech against Dr.
Briggs position. Like all other speakers,
he dwelt strongly on Judge Breckenridge's
advice given the assembly Just before his
death yesterday. DR.. E.rshine dissected
DR.. Briggs inaugural, and, despite the OPP
position of many commissioners, ran over
the whole gaInut of criticism of DR. Briggs
as il has been set forth in the various SER
mons and editorials put forth IN the relig-
ious press. Before he concluded there was
disorder through the assembly.
Rev j. J. Francis of Cincinnati, moved
that the vote on the report and amendments
be taken at 40 by yea and nay
The time was changed 10 O'Clock and
the motion was adopted.
Debate was then limited 10 ten minutes
speech.
Rev. James Lewis of Joliet, H., spoke in
favor of the substitute 1t was best for the
assembly neither to defend nor condemn
DR.. Briggs. He scored DR.. McKibb fol-
accusing the friends of Dr. Briggs of str.
ring up the discussion.
DIR. McKibben interrupted the speaker,
and some warm words were exchanged.
Mr.. Lewis said too severe action by the
assembly would give impetus to the dissem-
nation of DIR. Briggs views. If the role of
a martyr was forced on him, his ideas would
have more strength.
Elder George Junkin of Philadelphia op-
posed the substitute. The report was
straight proposition, and veto must be
under the rules now ..or never. As law
yer, he warned them that the substitute
would abrogate the rights Of, the assembly.