Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-01

ing session, members who desired to speak be-
ing given the floor when their names were
Called Only small percentage. however. took
advantage Of the privilege, preferring to follow
the advice of the Rev. George d. Baker Of
Philadelphia, in yielding the floor that a vote
might be reached sooner
Rev. DIR. Thomas A. Hoyt Of Philadelphia
spoke Of the great wave of rationalism from
Germany that was sweeping over this
country. Is the reason, he asked, compe-
tent to sit in judgment on the Scriptures? He
took il that the statements Of Christ and His
apostles on the subject of the divine origin of
the Scriptures were conclusive. DIR. Briggs
doctrine. said the speaker. was identified with
rationalism.
When Rev. Dr. Charles A. Dickey of Phila-
delphia arose there was q fiutter OF expectant
Interest. for Dr. Dickey Is considered one Of
the strong men OF the assembly. He said he
would vote to sustain the first second third
and fourth grounds of the appeal, because he
proposed to set them aside in order to get
nearer the main matter at issue. He would
vote to sustain in part the fifth ground Of ap-
peal, because he considered the finding Of the
New York presbvtery not sufficient to meet
the exigencies Of the csse. He found himself
opposed to Dr. Briggs on two points. one Of
which was the defense of the three doctrines Of
divine inspiration, with which he was not quite
satisfied DIR. Dickey. an conclusion. urged the
assembly to give DIR. Briggs q chance, and he
appealed that the latter might be allowed to
give full, free declaration of doctrine.
Elder Franklin Shepherd and John Meigs and
Rev q. H. P. Mason Of Philadelphia read care
fuuy prepared statements Of their reasons for
opposing the reversing Of the judgment Of the
New York presbytery.
ONLY ONE BRIGGS MAN.
Rev. James VI. Maxwell Of Pittsburg said he
had kept a careful tally Of the gentlemen who
had spoken today and none Of them save the
illustrious junior member of the assembly from
New Mexico had approved or defended the
teachings OF DR.. Briggs. IF you would not
ordain him" he asked, sis il fair to ask me to
receive such a man into nv pulpit? 1t is
against all ideas of fairness and the law OF the
Presbyterian Church.
Rev. Abel NJ. Work Of Central Dakota said
he was sorry for Prof. Briggs because OF some
of his friends. These had declared that unless
his views of Scripture were accepted by the
church there was schism in the air. There
are some people in this country" said Mr..
Wood, ''vho go about bearing the flag and Civ
ing warning of the chaos that ia to come unless
they have their way" Mr.. Work said he
getting weary of the oft-reiterated statements
on this floor that DR.. Briggs was the only man
whose scholarship entitled him to the respect
of the church. that he alone competent to
teach and interpret the Scriptures and stand
ards of the Presbyterian Church.
Samuel H. King Of Alaska He said he had
found all the way from Alaska here that the
preachers we're opposed to DIR. Briggs. The
retiring moderator had launched a sermon that
was decidedly against DR.. Briggs, and the Lead
ing pastor of Washington had declared that he
King said he satisfied now that he couldn't
exchange those shoes
These divines had endeavored to induce the
speaker and his fellow missionaries to believe
that DIR. Briggs was attempting to tear the Bible
from Its covers, but he had himself told the
! assembly, and been supported IN his statements
by Drs. Herrick johnson, Spinning and Chas. L.
, Thompson. that he believed in the Bible. THAT
angel from New Mexico" continued Mr.. King.
wanted to give DIR. Briggs bath in one of the
mudholes in that territory. Why, he isn't an
anarchist that needs soap and water treatment"
VOTING ON THE CHARGES.
I 1t was s:45 o'clock when the moderator put
be sustained" and DIR. Roberts, the stated
clerk, read the first specification in substance
( that the presbytery of New York on objections
made by DR.. Briggs. required the prosecuting
committee to amend the amended charges and
Specifications by striking out charge four
Young Mr.. Hall of Chicago was on his feet in
an instant to give notice that he would call for
a division and tellers on six of the thirty-four
specifications. The question then put by
the moderator, ''Shall the specification be sus-
tained? and upon a viva voce vote he declared
IL sustained. division" went up from the
Briggs men, All the members rose and the
moderator in his usual terse way called out
Sustained" A great shout of count"
''count." arose from all parts of the church.
and the moderator directed the clerks to make
the count. The specification was declared sus-
tanned by vote of 2s2 to 100. This vote
showed that the attendance seventy-seven
less than the number present when the vote was
taken Friday on sustaining the appeal, the vote
on which was 4O5 aye and IA nay.
Specifications second to twelfth inclusive
under the first grand appeal. all relating to ir-
Irregularities in the proceedings of the New York
presbytery, were sustained seriatim. some by
tally and some merely by viva voce or rising
vote The Briggs men showed their greatest
strength specification fourth, which alleged
tat the action of the presbytery in giving Dr.
Briggs an opportunity to present alleged new
matter. without specifying the new matter. was
irregular. Tho vote resulted 23S to 1885, sustain
ing the specification.
OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL SUSTAINED
The second ground Of appeal alleged the re-
ceiying of improper testimony. and was based
upon three specifications They set I'D that
the defendant should have been sworn: that the
statements and matter interpolated by the de-
PENDANT into the record were permitted to re-
main, and that the quotations and extracts Of
Tered by the defendant were received as evil
dence without his having been sworn. On the
hrst specification division taken. the re-
suit being that the specification was sustained
262 TO 1s5. Tho others were sustained by viva
vOce votes.
The third ground of appeal vas that of "de-
Ginning to receive important testimony with
two specifications, that charges 4 and were
stricken out. thereby preventing the prov
sng OF the charges. These specifications were
sustained without division
The fourth ground of appeal alleged ssmani-
HESITATION OF prejudice in the conduct Of the
case. and of its six specifications the Briggs
men carried two and came within two votes of
carrying another. On the first specification,
which alleged that Revs. George Alexander.
Antonio Arreghi, Henry VI. Field, Thomas s.
Hastings and Henry Van Dyke made prejudiced
statements on the floor and afterward voted in
Che presbytsry not to sustain each and every
one OF the specifications and charges. a viva
soce vote was taken only, but the moderator
declared the specification lost There was some
attempt at applause when the decision was an
bounced, but 1t was quickly queIled
CHARGES OF PREJUDICE.
Specifications second. third and fourth. allee
ing that the presbytery did not try the case on
Is merits, attempted to terminate il without
attaining the ends of discipline and evaded the
issue. were sustained by viva voce votes. Spec-
ihcation fifth, alleging that Revs. Francis
Brown, Henry NJ Field. Thomas s. Hastings.
r Hall McIlyaine and Henry Van DYKE r,a,,