New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-12-01
THE TRIAL OF PROF. SMITH.
OF TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT
OF THE CHARGES.
THE ACCUSED PROFESSORS LETTERS TO A RELIC
IoUS PAPER READ IN CoUET-TuE
DEFENDANTS ANSWER.

DEFENDANTS ANSWER.
Cincinnati. Nov. 3O-The trial proper Of Professor
Henry Preserved Smith began to-day. It's progress
was delayed, however by long discussion over the
form OF record Of yesterdays action, and sll rther
by the discovery that no full copy OF the amended
charges and specifications had been given the accused
man. The court waited while the clerks prepared
this and during the wait some OF them INDUCED IN
informal speculation as TO the number OF Acr7y
trials that would follow In this one ended IN
conviction.
The Prosecuting Committee. by direction Of the
court began TO introduce testimony In support OF 'e
first charge. They read two articles written Dy ITO
lessor smith and published In "The Ncw-lork Evan
rost- in March and April last IN which he discusses
ordination VOWS and freedom Of opinion among MIN
sters lie declares therein the nbsurdlty Of expecting
an entire conformity Of Views among ministers ana
saws II would be simply an imposslAlity ior every
minister 10 conform 10 the Views OF majority
Of the General Assembly. Speaking Of the suggestion
that If one finds himself unable TO conform to The views
Of the majority he should seek some other Church. ne
says he cannot find congcnia Church. and to found
a new one he regards schlsmatc and sinful There
are too many sccts already. lie argues In the
articles read that there Is an ironclad standard OF
belief covering all questions In theology, to when
minister IS bound to subscribe In order 10 JUSTIFY
him in continuing in the work TO which he feels
that he has been called.
Professor Smith admitted that he wrote the ar'lcl
cited from 1.-THE Evangelist and said hc had n
testimony to offer in defence. DR.. Lowe, Of the
prosecution. urged him TO offer something by way Of
Gisavowal Of what the commit ee ha1 Oh rgei tat
his articles taught, but the defendant stood on hi,
rights and said he preferred T. dsprove ihe commit
tees charge, not 10 disavOw TO give an Int. PIE
iaton He held that the committees Interpretation
u his language not warranted. This being IA"
ISSUE the Rev. Mr. Lowe made the op Ming argum n.
.sI. rrs
into the principles Of the Church. had done IT in suc
n way In these articles as 70 niure the peace and
purity Of the Church. because II the Church ortuniza
ton was 10 be maintained II was indispensable that
the Bible be regarded as absolutely infanble.
Professor Smith replied with bfeyity. H. com
palned once more Of the ambiguity Of the charge
which might TO charge him with dsloyalty a
denial Of the right Of discipline violation Il lis
vows. Willie n majority might 10 conv.c, him Of
any Of these charges, this ambiguity allows any one
who finds lin guilty Of any one 0! these charges TO
vote % sustain Tie charge He deni dsOyMy 70
the Church, ana said the articles written 10
maintain the authority Of IN. Church. Summing up.
he said there was 10 evidence TO show that lie I'm
pugned the Westminster doctrine or that lie sale /
the fundamental principles Of Church order soft
forth In the form Of government, that lie taught Dis
loyalty 70 the Church that he had In any way IN
jurcd the peace purity Of the Church.
The closing argument was made by DR.. McKibb"n
Of the Prosecuting Committee lie was careful IA
say that the question was simply whether from The
testimony afduced By the committee its Interpretation
Of what Professor Snth has taught /, correct Ills
argument followed closely the Language u the articles
cltcd 10 sustain the committees position, namely.
that Professor smith taught that mini tcr may
abandon essential features Of doctrine the Church
and stu righfuy rnaiptaIn his position. lie quoted
from Henry Il. Smith Dr.. Hodge and others 10 show
what the Presbyterian Church was. and that Pro
ie-sOr smiths teachings were not In conformity with
the standards Of the Church. lie repeated dcclri
Armenian nor Pclagian, but Caylnlstic and he cor.
rccted former msquOtation Of his remarks which
made him say Prcsbytcrans were not free agents.
lie regretted that TrOcssO Smith had dlsavONcd
any Intention TO teach what the committee had rs
serted lie had Taught He hoped he might vet DO
lie closed with again calling attention 10 the
question 10 De docidednOt what Professor smith holds
or believes. but what Is fair Interpretation Of BIZ
teaching, IN tlc articles cited.
The case then adjourned an 20 morrow