Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-27

THE VOTE ON THE GUEsrrON-A LARGE
MAJORITY AGAINST DR.. BRIGGS.
| from Yesterdays Assembly Edition1
When the afternoon session began at 2:3O
O'Clock according to the moderator's calcula-
ton there was left an hour and
twenty minutes of the four hours allowed
for debate before the assembly would vote on the
question OF entertaining the appeal. The
| church was again crowded. 1t was decided be-
fore resuming the debate to have an evening
session tonight for the purpose Of continuing
| the debate
Judge Cutcheon OF Detroit then took the
| 1oor, arguing that the case should be referred
| to the synod.
Judge Cutcheon said the issue before the
| court was, shall the appeal be entertained?
| He suggested that another concession in
| reference to the substitute motion which was
| to be offered be made. and that was that they
| might have the yeas and nays recorded, al
| though the rule was that such vote should be
| taken only on final vote. This could be done
| he thought, by unanimous consent. He then
read from the book of discipline the provision
| that nothing which is not contained in the rec
ord shall be taken into consideration by the
higher court the appeal. Much that had
been considered was nos properly before this
| court Some one said this morning that if the
case was sent back to the synod he would move
| that DR.. Briggs be removed from his office
during trial. He would convict him without a
| trial.
DR.. Hays arose and said he had not said that.
| What he did say was that he would move that
he be not permitted to exercise the functions Of
his office pending his trial
Judge Cuteheon said he would accept DR..
Hays disavowal. Proceeding, he said an
orderly conduct Of this case made it incumbent
on this prosecuting committee to take the case
first to the synod.
Rev. John ". Balm Of Altoona, Pa, was the
| made by member of the New York synod that
! If the case was referred to that body it would
not entertain it for moment. He did not
know whether that was true or not, but he be-
lieved the case should not be referred to the
synod. He reviewed briefly, the Briggs
had vetoed the appointment of DR.. Briggs
to the chair of biblical theology in Union
Seminary. He argued that owing to the rela-
tions Of the assembly to the seminary and the
fact that the presbytery and synod had no con-
troll over the seminary whatever the proper
place tor trying DR.. Briggs was in
| the assembly. 1t did not seem rea-
sonable to spend so much time in discussing how
the case came before them. 1t was here and
| he believed they should try 1t. 1t was not the
j human constitution of the church they had to
consider so mach the divine constitution.
One man whom he asked to contribute to the
boards of the church had refused to write his
| check until he knew whether the Presbyterian
| Church was to have Grant Bible or not, or
| the new American Bible with the Pentateuch,
printed in ten different colors to show how
many authors there were. He was proceeding
to enumerate the compilers of this American
Bible, to show, he said, the company the ac-
cused was in.
There was a murmur of protest and DR.. Hall
rose to his feet to call the speaker to order, rs
there was no such testimony before the assem-
bly,.
The moderator asked the speaker to pass by
this part of his speech. Mr.. Balm concluded
by urging that the case be not referred back to
the synod.
THE DEBATE GOES ON.
Elder Henry Parsons of West Chester, New
York, the next speaker, questioned DR.. Rob-
erts' statement that this assembly had been
chosen to issue this case. He then questioned
the attitude and status Of the prosecuting COM
mittee. As to the question of leaping the
synod he said the reference made by DR.. Rob-
erts to the Scotch precedent antedated the
Westminster confession by ten years.
DIR. Roberts stated that that was the law Of
the Scotch court today.
| Mr.. Parsons said DIR. Roberts would have
saved him some trouble if he had sta ted so
| when he spoke. To entertain this appeal. no
| said, was contrary to all their sense Of Justice
and contrary to all precedents in civil courts.
Ii it were not contrary to the presidents Of
ecclesiastic courts SO much the worse for the
| ecclesiastic courts.
DR. DUFFIELD.
| Prof. Duffleld of Princeton, NJ, then spoke.
He called attention to tie amendment offered
| by him two years ago to resolutions adopted
| by the presbytery Of New Brunswick express
sive Of his high appreciation OF the motives and
scholarship of DR.. Briggs. He felt the same
| today and recognized the high standing of Dr.
Briggs today scholar. He intimated that
his logical faculties we're not as well developed
| as his critical.
He denied that DIR. Briggs had any constitu-
| tional rights which the consideration Of this
case by the assembly would violate. 1t was a
question Of expediency rather than of cons.i-
tutional right.
He thoug ht that if good and sufficient rea-
sons could not be stated for considering the
| case here it ought to be sent to the synod.
He said that there were such reasons. He
spoke Of the boldness of DR.. Briggs in
stating publicly that the time had
come for reconstructing our theology. and
| creeds, and said that if the Episcopal Church
gave up the thirty-nlne articles then the Pres
byterian ought to be willing to let tho West
| minister confession go.
One Of the commissioners called the speaker
| to order and the moderator reminded DIR. DUFF
| field that he should not discuss the merits Of
the case.
The speaker went on to say that he was quoting
from DIR. Briggs writings. He then went into
| a discussion of the views advanced by DR..
Briggs ana asked III IL was likely that such views
were Endorsed by the church.
| DIR. BRIGGS PROTESTS.
When DR.. Dufiield's time had expired DR..
Briggs sprang to his feet. There were several
others on the floor and considerable confusion
resulted. DR.. Briggs began addressing the
moderator, protesting against what he said
were misstatements OF his views and utter
ances by DIR. Duffield.
The moderator declared he had no right to
speak; that he would be heard in due time il
| the was taken Up.
II have right now, Mr.. Moderator" de-
clared DR.. Briggs.
You have not" said the moderator
Il appeal to the house." said DR.. Briggs
DIR. Duffied said he hoped DIR. Briggs would
have in due time full opportunity to be heard
The moderator proceeded to recognize an
other speaker, when DIR. Briggs again declared:
Il appeal to the house."
'YOu are not party in this house now"
said the moderator. II beg of you to take
your seat"
DIR. Briggs took his seat. but still protested.
REV. ROBERT L. BACHMAS
Rev. Robert L. Bachman of the presbytery
of Utica, the next speaker, of the opinion
that fatal mistake would be made in not re-