The Dickinson press., 1892-11-19
ALLEGED TO BE HERETICAL.
CINCINNATI THE SCENE OF AN
ECCLESIASTICAL TRIAL.
A Reverend Professor Who Has a
Chair In the Lane Theological
Seminary Charged With En-
pounding That Which Is
Very Unorthodox.
And His Name is Smith.

And His Name Is Smith.
Cincinnati. Nov. la.-The trial of lr.
Henry +. Smith on the charge of her,'sH
began here to-day. He Ia prepared 10 make
d vigorous defense. He claims that
errancy in the Scriptures he has no, v!o-
lated the confession Of faith Of the church.
nor has he violated his obligations as Il
minister OF the gospel. lie insists also that
he believes that the Bible Is the wonl OF
God and the iufallible rule of faith and
practice. but that such belief does not a..
sentialiI deElapd that every word OF the
lHh!c Is literally true aud inspired. DR..
smith does not rc;ract anything slat lie
said. hut defends hits own case with the
claim that his teachings and writings are
not he,e,ical. The trial Is held In the First
Presbyterian church. the oldest church or
Santzation III the city. Those who look up.
GU the reverend professor OF Lane Thco'
logical seminary, who is on trial rs ~ teach
Gr Of herrSr, tind a illness in the fnct that
this church which planted the FIRST seed Of
l'reshyterianism In the Ohio valley should
be the place where the first wedding on,
OF hercsy should bt dome. 1t Ia hot fair TO
say that the tria! body. the Cincinnati pres
hytcry, has prcju1eed the case. hut iuaS-
much ES the charses rest upon papers pub.
lished by the accused. il Is more than likely
that the opinion formed by the mca.brrs
OK the prcshytery from rnading his paper
Will hardly be greatly modified by the p,o-
tesSnrs own argument In defense III his
position. Ii Is fact OF some interest that
in this church Rev. MIR. Lyman Eecrhcr.
father OF Henry Ward Hcccher. was
| brought In trial.
DR.. J. +. Scott Of Lebanon is the mod
orator. During the call Of the roll l.cY.
In CI., VI tn
black suit nnl WAS cnrryins a small satchel
containing the manuscript of his defense.
| aud other papers of reference. He was not
apparently diScompoSNl hy the close pres
ence OK his prosecutors. DIR. McliihbcD,
Rev. Thomas o. Lowe md Elder s. II.
Shields. nor ly the Presence Of several hun.
dred interested listeners. The morning scs-
sion was taken up with settling what men,
! bers can vote In making up the verdict. At
the former meeting II WAS decided that only
| those could vote who were present at all
the sessions Of the trial. and that the he
ginning OF the trial should date from the
time l'rof. Smith began reading his de-
Tense. Rev. +. H. Morris being unavoid-
ably detained in brooklyn. was. by vote. ell.
rolled us present. Prof. Smith made u
specific objection TO three members Of the
They were Rev. Sir. Dawson, Kcv. fto6ert.
son and Rev. Francis. These ministers had
IN puoiished interviews III the newspapers
publicly declared thu, they believed him
guilty Of the charges against hin. Upon a
motion BY Rev. Frank Monfort that Prof
Smiths objections to the organization OF
the court be not sustained u large majority
voted In the affirmative.
The Defense.
The professor began then In II calm way
devoid Of feeling or passion. To prrsen, hi
case. He first argued against the regulnrit.
O. this proceeding. clniming that the com
nlittre on erroneous teaching had no right Il
Inquire into ministerial standing uf iniivid,l
u mtmherS' That was u iu'ii'i"l process
lie further charged tia; the comnitlr. WI
DrsJud!ced nui appeared 10 represent On
In open prHhslcry by the moderator ii
making the appointment. and It was furthc
evident from the form OF the report Itself
lie further declared that il was irreeula
without III. distinct inquiry on the part o
thc rreSbStsrS whether 1t be necessary 10
ths ends of disnillnc to investigate tn
Of the book of discipline which declare
that effort should h, made by private con
1,1 ference &C. with the accused to avoid. II possl
had NOT been done in his ease. The commit,
! tee had only sent him % demand that he rG
tract what Ii. had written. I:nt as thcs
objections Ind already h-r. virtually owe,
such USE rs may In possible hereafter. II
then proceeded To remind tho court OF th
necessity for extreme caution In actcrlnu
. ing thu question presented tn let no prev
. onsly formed opinions, ,overrulc the process
Of reason Thos" familiar he snid, with til
recent history Of our church must rreliz
TINT just now are In the midst nf In
i 1incnces unfricnly to calm and bnsc
consideration OF tloctrina issues. The rcr
fnct that we nre revising our confession q
faith seems TO mnke some minds NOR" sens
BILE than usual to doctri,nl issues The sol
question now before us is the sufficicnry {
the charges and specifications presented b
b your committee. Except thia everytlin
r hsnring on the cnsr, or supposed to hear q
= minds. The charges Of the committee aii.g
certain facts. They nii"ee further til;
these fcts constitute IN ofense ugain
!. the Presbyterian church. Whether the q
i legged facts nlr true IL u question OF ev
|. dcncr tn IN. proved In the trial OF the cas-
, Whether cvsi, II they h" rs alleged the
constitute IN ofycnsc is q question not
Testimony bn: nf law. In other words, 81
indictment mnst Il" sufficient In law befo,
Y cnn IN. pleaded TO md tried upon the cy
1enc:. He then took up the charges again
Il him on. by ono. md raised objection,
). their sutfici.ncy. I'm theS,. grounds he ask,
! that the chnrgcs referred to bc stricken OF
:; AT THIS point the rlmshEtrry adjourned.