Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-31

JOS. I. SMITH.
extended, and every commissioner who desires
| to do SO, and can put what he has to say into
three minutes, will have an opportunity during
the day to say why, in mis- opinion, the
appeal should be sustained or rejected.
AGAINST DIR. BRIaas.
The practical operation Of the rule calling
men to their feet as the roll was read was to
show at least for the first hour Of the discus
sion that the commissioners for the presbyter-
les az they are arranged on the roll in alpha
betical order were in favor Of condemning DR..
Briggs.
The first voice raised in favor of DR.. Briggs
was that Of Rev. Charles Fuller Of the presby-
terry Of Gunnison, Col.
With vigorous language he asserted that
In bis opinion DR.. Briggs language was mis-
understood. Then he added that the words Of
Jesus were also misunderstood, and that the
Christian church today IL divided
on the Interpretation of the
words Of Christ. "This is my body" It was
Just as reasonable, he added, to complain that
Christ did not speak more clearly a. to bring
The venerable Rev. DR.. Smith Of Baltimore
and Rev. DIR. Leftwich Of the same city ex-
pressed their belief that the appeal should be
sustained, while the commissioners from this
city, Rev. Joseph 7. Kelly and Mr.. John Ran
dolph, ranged themselves on the same side, both
speaking briefly but to the point.
The call OF the roll went on, the ministers and
elders jumping to their feet and giving their
opinion Of DR.. Briggs, and the character and
influence Of his teachings. The general
opinion among those that argued for the
appeal was that DR.. Briggs opinions
tended to undermine the truth Of the Bible. to
distract and confuse the minds of the young
and to necessitate q rewriting Of the doctrines
Of the church. Special stress was laid on
the allegation that DR.; Briggs taught that
men could find God through the reaJon and
also on the other alleged error that DR.. Briggs
asserted that the Bible was Grant There
was good deal said of the unrest
caused in the church by DR.. Briggs
teachings, and some Of the commissioners asked
If DR.. Briggs was acquitted how could they
explain to the people that his views were in
harmony with the doctrines Of the church.
IN FAVOR OF BRIGGS.
Four members Of the synod of Illinois spoke
against sustaining the appeal. DR.. Herrick
Johnson's speech Was forcible and clear. Rev.
Thomas c. Hall took occasion to explain that his
fathers name had been maintained among
those who favored this prosecution, while he
had expressed no opposition to the proceeding
| in writing
A change Of views was announced by Rev.
John W. Pugh, DID,, Of the Bloomington, Ill =,
presbytery. He said he had voted against enter
tanning the appeal, but after hearing DR.. Briggs
defense he had concluded that 1t was merely
special pleading and avoided the issues
He intended to vote. rather blunt
alternative was presented by Rev. John
s. Hays, D. D., the blind preacher Of
Kentucky. which was that DR.. Briggs doctrines
would have to be made a part of the standards
Of the church, or else DR.. Briggs will have to
leave the church.
This was the first reference made TO the
penalty which the assembly might impose
s oasn speakers n tn. n'i1 essseh S
Briss. was driven out, while extremist:
on the other side gave utterance to
the opinion that II DR.. Briggs was
found guilty Of heresy all those who voted
against sustaining the appeal should be treated
as DR.. Briggs was.
The debate was continued at the afternoon
session. 1t Is expected that the vote on sus-
tanning the appeal will be taken at the close Of
the debate.
The Morning Session.
DR.. Holli6eld OF New Jersey, who made him
self q conspicuous figure in the assembly the
other day by his remarks about what he termed
the Romish tendencies Of the Protestant Epis-
copal Church, conducted the opening devo-
tional exercises this morning. The attendance
was fully as large on any previous morning.
When the regular business session opened
DR.. Baker. chairman Of the judicial committee.
announced that according TO the plan Of pro-
to members of the assembly to discuss the case
and then the vote would be taken on the ques-
ton whether or not to sustain the specifications
Of error alleged.
THE QUESTION OF TINE LIMIT.
DR.. Jos. T. Smith moved to reconsider the vote
by which that mode Of procedure was adopted
He said that under the rule in two hours only
twelve brethren could be heard while the other
500 would be silent. He suggested that mem
bers who desired when the roll was called be
permitted to explain their votes If they desired.
After some discussion the motion made by
DIR. Smith was allowed.
DR.. Roberts moved that speeches be limited
to two minutes.
This proposition provoked some discussion.
DR.. Young said that at Portland speeches
were limited to five minutes and at Plttsburg
to three minutes
DR.. Roberts motion was amended 30 As to
limit speeches to five minutes.
DIR. Baker insisted that the standing rule
fixed the limit at ten minutes. The moderator
said this was the outside limit He ruled that
the assembly could fix any limit within that
time.
DR.. Niccolls suggested going on the old rule
Of ten minutes, and at the end Of the two hours,
if the assembly % desired. it could extend the
time.
Both the five-minute and two-minute propo-
sitions were lost, leaving the assembly with the
ten-minute rule as their rule Of action.
CALLING THE ROLL.
After some discussion Q motion BY Dr..
Smith to proceed to the roll call was carried
DR.. Bartlett announced that, in view Of the
intended early departure Of many Of the COM
missioners for home, it had been found i'm
practicable to arrange for the proposed excur-
sion to Gettysburg.
The moderator explained that the roll would
be called to permit those who desired to
speak in the order in which they were called.
A motion by DR.. Roberts to limit the time to
three minutea carried