New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-11-05

of DR.. Wyhe, Lucirs W. HOW WIS "aoo o"'''"-
stcnographor
The Prcbytery adopted as It's rulcs in the trial the
general rules In the Book OF Discipline as amended
in 1885. and was then constituted and charged by
tho Moderator In reply TO the question whether
he required counsel, DIR. Briggs sa'd 10 a'd NO"
d. Bliss stated the object for which tho i1espy'ery
was convened. namely. to hear the answer 70 inc
citation Issaed by the Prcsbytcry In OCTOBER IN inc
case OF the charges OF heresy presehteu oS VIC 'o'
Dr. BRIGGS READS HIS ANSWER.
aVhat has Dr. Briggs TO say to these charges ~
asked the Moderator. DR. Briggs answer was paper
Of 1000 words fling objections TO the sufciency OF
! the charges In form and in legal effect. The sub
stance OF this paper viii be found OH anoter page OF
The Tribune this morning.
Following the reading Of the paper, the question ms
10 the constitution OF the prosecuting committee was
raised. DR.. Bliss decided that the committee was
properly commt4ee Of prosecution, and that II rep
resented the Presbyterian Church in the United States
of America, and in the house as an original party
in the case under provision Of section 10 OF tho
Book of Discipline, and was In The trial independent
OF the Presbytery.
Professor Francis Brown appealed from the de-
cson of the Moderator and the question was divided
but the Moderator was sustained in both points Dr.
Dyke then filed the following protest In behalf OF
himself and others against this decision:
In accordance with the Bo0l. Of Discipline. Section
105, protest against tho ruling Of the Moderator In
the Presbytery OF New ork. in the case Of c: A.
Briggs; that The committee consisting Of G. W. T.
Bireh, j. ]. Lampc, Il, f. sample, J. J. Mccook,
and John J: stevenson, is an original party IN the
case and therefore entitled to DC heard first under
Rule %. Book of Discipline, as an erroneous de-
csion, the following grounds . a..
l. IN case arising under common o'l.I fame: Inc
Fec minutes Of General Assembly United States S;
5sso dRSpo S9 This eondae '''s sae nf
ton in all its stages in whatever iudicatory'
and there is no record OF the Presbytey to sho" Scn
appointment.
HENRY VAN DYKE.
Professor Brown gave notice Of complaint against
the decision of the Presbytery in the same way and
DR.. Briggs also gave notice Of an appeal. Professor
stevenson heard for the prosecution ana aier ne
had spoke Dr. van Dyke presented the foilo"mg
resolution:
Resolved In the exercise Of the authority conferred
upon us by the Book of Discipline. Section o. and In
this Presbytery do now dismiss this and that the
committee appointed to prepare 5he o4.ers DC ,b nS
charged with the thanks OF the Pssoylers LOT 'neir
diligence.
DR.. VAN DYKE PLEADS FOR PEACE.
The hour for recess had now arrived. When the
Presbytery reassembled, the following committee was
appointed to answer DR.. van Dykes protest: Ut.
H. b. Elliot, DR.. Charles A. Stoddard ana hoDert
Regis Dr. van Dyke spoke to his resolution, saying
in substance:
Mir. Moderator: That was fair. open motion, made
for the puposs that must appear obvious 70 everybody
sal upon ne aoor OF this Pres1J ;ery thai he wishes
trial. IL Is made Tao interest OF ali OF US elders
and ministers, who have soemny sworn 10 study the
Interests OF peace, unity and pulty OF the Church
nave asAed myself honestly and at the bar OF con
psarc aniy and purity Of s Church viii DC promoted
this r ssFy pushing forward cd t neI tSs ous s
lion whether the trial is going on or not. we are 10
consider principally our responsibility In regard TO IT, az
sworn 70 study and TO observe. l.. ,oo,,
The theory has been advanced, and we ought 70 loox
at IT, that have no aiernAtive-that tins tial once
begun, must g. 10 t.e bitter end III REMINDS ne
OF story my dear father used TO Tell me about the
man vita the steam leg IL was very ingenious
leg and vesy strong leg but the mischief OF i was
tat when they got it started IN any direction II was
bound TO carry yOu straight along, whether IL carried
you against wall or into the water. Now the com
mites seems to think we have got on steam eg our
Book Of Discipline provides US with the authority 70
turn off the steam by dismissing the case IL says
very clearly in the book that It Is villain the PfOvTe
The question Is whether there are reasons for so cong
First of all, is IL for the interest OF peace and unity
ana purity in the Church 70 try man Tor MS ecsesi
astcal life under circumstances when are calculated
TO exert prejudice against him 1t Is not necessary
TO allude to all these circumstances todayconlusions
in the atmosphere that have ehyeoped THIS mater mate
to state these circumstances. Here Is the preamble,
which contains serios and painful negiSn W meea
them ikc man. lie comes here and says: $50 far
have HS S ang errors have not had
any conscious intention OF disturbing the peace OF the
Church" lie goes on and says If have disturbed
It. II l have given pain fpa ef to my brethren, am
sorry With all my heart cay mat Is "a, "a manly,
ihrissn for us. in tie face Of an ayowai IKE that,
go on with trial which begins wiz an attack against
a minister's honor and character, which ne has no
chance TO meet and which lie does Ot propose 10 re-
The econd Question is this Is it for the peace and
unity and purity OF the Church TO 60 on with trial
under charges and specifications which do not COZ
nel Now The objections that nave been presented to
us thii morning arc vrry serious: II VIII sot 90 TO
shall be charged ard one offence and toe charges sew
eIa are MT specific. The book says that our policy
fbaf -haU Ia offp
cardinal doctrine. The charge does not state
tnn. the offence s,r1o ns ,dR the fsa o fS
lions aside II Is no reflection on the committee to
say hs The committee t !: r gs o s ss sSS
OF NeH-York. They have had in tueiT own number
the bar Of the tinted states ann they have sought the
best theological adyse thai fOad be hsd at all tns sv
cannot bring In anything stronger clearer better
in fact and legal effect ihan those charges and spee
thew are T 10 blame but the case IS weak one
Then the third question Is this Is i for the interest
q peace and uty ard purity in our Church n to proceed
fcss6n of fundamental belief that has been made in the
They couId not help coming in because they were IN
the heart Of the man that made them; they could not
a aHp Sf and gs Belief Tiers s' no HESITATION
There was little boy in the Sunday school who was
Wa, not an orthodox Interpretation. It ) because
R S S sU sss sSSa and md d dsaNoxsi The
purgat0ry and probation after death: and all kindred
errors. He has declared his faith that the redeemed
enter the future LIE gultess ana sipiess lie has
declared his faith that productive prophecy
has boon, is being and will be fulfilled
and tire Reason as sources ot authority. He has
affirmed his belief in the Divine inspiration OF all
the Holy Scriptures which, taken together, make up
the only nfalible rule OF faith and practice and to
which he submits and appeals rs the final AUTHORITY
70 judge in all matters of conference Now those
are solid and substantial confessions Of faith. Shall
we look upon the man who has made them In our
presence enemy who must be put on trial
for his life? Is that in accordance with that spirit
of charity which tlnketh evils VIII IL tend 10
unity and to purify our Church 10 take man who
holds these beliefs TO put him on tial for his eccle
slastical life. a heresy lis great evil The history
OF the Church proves It,. II bcgets distinctions, sus
picons. iesousies and sife. admit there are cases
where 1t IS necessary evil but 10 embrace the evil
without necessity is sin against our brother,