The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1892-11-19
ALLEGED TO BE HERBTICAL,
CINCINNATI THE SCENE OF AN
ECCLESIASTICAL TRIAL.
A Reverend Professor Who Has a
Chair in the Lane Theological
Seminary Charged With Ex-
pounding That Which Is
Very Unorthodox.
And His Name Is Smith.

Ana his N6tn0 - SvVstss. e.
Cincinnati, Nov. 15.-The triad Of DR..
Henry p. Smith on the charge Of heresy
began here to-day. He is prepared to make
a vigorous defense, BE claims thu,
by holding that there Is in-
errancy in the Scriptures he has not vic.
lated the confession of faith. Of the church,
nor has he violated his Obligations as r
minister of the gospel. He insists also that
he believes that the Bible Is the word Of
God and the infallible rule Of faith and
practice, but that such belief does not G.,
sentially demand that every word Of the
Bible Is literally true and inspired. DR..
Smith does not retract anything that he
said, but defends his own case with the
claim that his teachings and writings are
not heretical. The trial Is held IN the First
Presbyterian church, the Oldest church or
ganization in the city. Those who hook up
on the reverend professor of Lane Theo-
logical seminary, who Is on trial as q teach
err Of hercsy, find a fitness in the fact that
this church which planted the first seed Of
prcsbyterianism in the Ohio valley should
be the place where the first wedding out
OF hcresy should, be done. 1t is not fair to
say that the trial body, the Cincinnati. pres
bytery, has prejudgel the case, but mas
much Es the charges rest upon papers pub
lished by the accused, it is more than likely
l1akI wv Vp1AIOA W LHC AlNAlUCTH
of the 'presbytery from reading HIS paper.
will hardly be. greatly modified by the pro-
fcssor's own argument In defense of his
position. 1t Is O fact of some interest that
in this church Rev. Mr.. Lyman Beecher,
father Of" Henry Ward Beecher, was
brought to trial.
DIR. j. T.. Scott Of Lebanon is the mod:
orator. During the call Of the ron Rev.
DIR. Smith came in. He was dressed In q
black suit and was carrying Il small satchel
containing the manuscript Of his defense.
and other papers of reference. He was not
apparently discomposed by the close pres
ence of his prosecutors, DIR. McKibben,
Rev. Thomas O. Lowe and Elder 8. 81.
Shields. nor by the presence of several hun:
dred interested listeners. The morning SEES.
sion was taken up with settling what men,
bers can vote in making up the verdict, AT
the former meeting it was decided that only
those could vote who were present at all
the sessions of the trial, and. that the be-
ginning Of the trial should date. from the
time Prof. Smith began reading; his de-
tense. Rev. Il. D.. Morris being unavoid-'
ably detained in Brooklyn, was, by vote, en-
specific objection to three members Of the
pMresbytery setting as jurors or judges.
They were Rev. Mr.. Dawson, Rev. Robert
son and Rev. Francis. These ministers had
- siS"S Al " W6RukG4n
publicly declared that they believed him
guilty Of the charges against him. Upon q
motion BY Rev. Frank Monfort that Prof.
Smiths objections to, the organisation of
voted i'll the Affirmative;
The %I)efcnne. il,
The professor began then in a calm way,
devoid of feeling or passion. to present his
case: He first argued against the regularity
Of this proceeding, claiming that the com
inquire into ministerial standing of indivldu-
n ,mtmberS That was u judicial process.
lie further charged that the committee was
opinion only. This he declared was avowed
In open prc"bytcry by the moderator in
making the appointment, and it was further
evident from the form Of the report itself.
because this judicial proceeding was taken
without the distinct inquiry on. the part Of
the presbytery whether it bic necessary for
the ends Of Discipline to investigate the
Of the book of discipline which declares
that effort should be made by private con
ference with the accused to avoid, IL posi-
had not been done in his case. The commit
tee had only sent him u demand that he. re.
tract what, he had written. But as these
objections had already been virtually over
such use as may be possible hereafter. He
then proceeded to remind the court Of the
necessity for extreme caution in determin
ing; the question presented to let no previ-
o o. formed opinions override the process
recent history OF our church must realize
that just now We are in the midst q: in:
fuences unfrienly to q calm ! md biased
consideration OF doctrinal issues. The very,
1act that We are revising our confession. Of
faith seems to make some minds more sensi-
BILE than usual to doctrlnal issues. The solo
tsa tl.a now before US is the suflciency Of
S gooI,ne committee . lit Except his everything
1t, should be resolutely. shut out Of your
minds. Tho charges of the committee atlege
certain facts They alleger further that
these facts constitute an offense against
the Presbyterian church. Whether the al
legged facts are true lisa question of evil
Gsnee to be proved in the trial q the case.
constitute an offense is a question not 81
testimony but Of law. In other words, an
Indictment must be sufficient In law before
it can be pleaded to and tried upon the evi.
dence. He then took up the charges against
him one by one, and raised objection to
their sufieiency. On these grounds be asked
That the charges referred to be stricken out,
|. AT this point the Dresbytery a1fOurncd.