The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-12-01
M. SMITH PLEADS NOT GUILTY.
re II Called Upon First to Defend Two
Ncwspppcr Articles.

ClSt1NNATt, Nov. sc. At this mornings SEES
sion OF the Cincinnati Presbytcry. Elder Sprou
offered n protest against the action OF the
Presbytery in refusing to sustain Prof Smiths
objection to the first OF the hcrcsy charges
against him. II was admitted to record aud
referred to the proper committee. The Pres
bytery decided that the citations from tho
Scriptures and from Prof. Smiths pamphlet
should be considered part OF the speciflca-
TONS On motion Of DR.. Curtis IL was ordered
that the charges and specifications be printed
rs amended. Tho clerk read the charges and
Specifications as amended. and announced
that Prot. Smith Acknowledged service OF same.
Tho Moderator then called upon Prof. Smith
to enter his plea. In firm voice he replied :
81 am not guilty. Mr.. Moderator"
DR.. Lowe then said the prosecution would
offer its evidence. Testimony for the defence
would then be offered and Prot Smith could
testify In his own behalf. A motion prevailed
Tho first charge was that Prof Smith taught
~ ys Il ,h ns Ssw hiissg t6at
officers Of tho church at the timo Of ordination.
llr. Lowe sa Id the only evidence the prosccu-
ton committee had was tho TWO ARTICLES IN INC
Prot smith said hc admitted tho authorship
of tho articles in question. and had no further
Dr. McEiLbin then read the articles and the
citations OF tho prosecution eSmmit,ee, e1 bs
esssufa. Tie E"Ssi;%a, fSrmSa and the
construe the texts of the articles according to
the otyions meaning Of their words;
Dr. Mckibhin said the committee had no de-
sire beyond ascertnining whether the articles
ton: They had tbs kiniest feeling toward
hy,eran Church. il Prot Smith would dis
avow tho INTERPRETATION PIT unon his , Inn.
guaEc. the committee would even DO Willihs
Prof. Smith said no Preferred to hisprovc tho
charge. The articles did not sustain tho com
mittte's Interpretation Of them. The issue
being thus clearly defined. DR.. Lowe proceeded
with his argument He commended thnt the
1t could not be misunderstood After reading
the charge no reviewed ut length the articles
we're contrary to sound doctrine, and bore out
tho construction placed upon them by the
Prosecution COMMITTED r,,,..o,
at his door. Some thought it dishonestyto
cipIine. i tut ' whas did the evidence show
That he had contributed two articles .is. to me
My {ork E% Ifs H men w MrGI
conform strictly to certain ideass; Of discipline
should get out OF the Church. The interpre-
tation q contract is always legitimate sub,
ject OF inquiry. especially. with parties
70 tho sGp,raG, So far r%m aT hes hsi
recognized that authority In the articles. His
sole inquiry was: low much is leGitimatHly
words "dretrinaI qualification. referred. he
said to the subscription required of tho min.
lister. There was no mention in the articles OF
abandoning essential features OF the system.
or of the right of q minister to remain In the
Church after abandoning them. Yet the pres
ont committee had SO charged.
Prof. Smith then explained the meaning and
purport Of his articles clai min: that there
was no evidence in them to show that he m
rugned tho Westminster doctrine OF the
Church. that he assailed tho fundamental
principles Of Church order as set forth in the
form Of government. that he taught or on
Outraged d!sloyalty TO the Prcsbyterian
Church, that he taught that lawful contract |
might lie broken or evadcd. or that he encour-
aged any to break or evade law full contract. |
n nd that he in any way injured the peace or
purity OF the Church
DR.. McKibbin made tho closing argument |
He said Tint DR.. smiths very strength OF |
all tho moro dangerous