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


Continued from Third Page.)
under DR.. Crosby had begun protesting He
bad gone on preaching more openly, and the
church had protested more strenuously. Now
they had come face to face. DR.. Briggs
two days speech was q defense. It was not q
retraction Of his views. He did not think
that Dr.. Briggs views come within the limits
OF liberal thought. Something must 60 down.
The Presbyterian Church WAS not ready to
make such q radical reformation as would be
meant BY an adoption Of his views.
JAMES A. CURRY.
Elder James A. Curry Of Ebenezer presby.
terry Of Kentucky summed up some Of DR..
Briggs utterances and declared that these
avowals were destructive of fundamental prin-
ciples of the Presbyterian Church and should
be condemned.
DR. WILLIAM c. YOUNG.
Ex-Moderator Young said that he agreed
with what DR.. Smith had said with reference to
the case. In his opinion the essence of the case
was in the fifth charge. His views were not
only opposed to the tenets of the Presbyterian
Church but also to all the principles Of evan
gelical theology.
ELDER CAMERON OF DETROIT.
Mr.. John Cameron of the synod Of Michigan
said that he believed in federation and thought
that DIR. Briggs was within the limits Of Pres
byterianism.
MR.. 8. M. cUTCHEoN.
Mr.. 8. NJ. Cutcheon Of Detroit began first
with question Of privilege by stating that he
had sat within the railing by DR.. Briggs side,
having been asked by DIR. Briggs to sit as his
advisory capacity. In a civil court this would
bar him from acting as juror in the case. He
hardly thought it would be seemly, under the
circumstances, to give his views on the ques-
ton at issue, and, to give himself the benefit Of
the doubt, he would ask that he be excused
from voting upon the case.
The question was put whether Mr.. Cutcheon
should be excused, and it was carried with only
one dissenting voice, that Of DIR. Roberts, the
stated clerk.
REV. W. 8. JEROME.
Rev. W. s. Jerome of Detroit declared that
he was heartily in favor Of not sustaining the
appeal. He believed that the presbytery of
New York acted wisely. Nor did he think that
II they approved the action Of the presbytery
they were indorsing DIR. Briggs views.
He never knew that the future of Martineau or
OF Newman or any other man was a
cardinal point in the Presbyterian faith.
II DR.. Briggs was hereto on the
point of the authorship Of Moses or
Isaiah there were many heretics in the church.
He referred to rulings OF DIR. Moffatt Rev. DR..
Green and others. He submitted that there was
not in the charges sufficient ground for placing
n man on trial for his ecclesiastic life. He
would vote not to sustain the appeal, not that
he approved DIR. Briggs views, but because he
believed he was within the liberty that should
be allowed to scholars.
REV. FRANK @. ELLErr.
Rev. Frank G. Elicit Of Flint, Mich, said
that they should inquire where history would
place DR.. Briggs. They represented church
that was not altogether evangelical There were
only about eight converts to each Of their min
listers. Was the Presbyterian Church doing
its whole duty to tho unconverted? He spoke
Of the fact that people were attacking the
church on the line. as they claimed Of reason.
He believed history would show that DR..
Briggs had been raised up to evangelize the
church by showing that God could be found
through the reason. DR.. Briggs wanted the
church TO stand forth as against the men that
were carrying away the world on the line of
reason and to show that God was working
through the reason. He believed that DR..
Briggs was laying the foundation for broader
and more evangelical church.
ELDER LAW.
Elder VIM. Law of Flint, Mich, declared his
belief that the New York presbytery had not
obey ed the mandate of the assembly when they
found that in the presbytery the Word of God
had been assailed. He believed they should
vote to sustain the appeal.
Charles Kelsey of Lake Superior presbytery,
Michigan, also spoke in favor OF sustaining the
appeal
REV. LEoNIDAs II. DAVIS.
Mr.. Davis Of Grand Rapids said that he felt
it was necessary for him to accept DR.. Briggs as
the best exponent Of his own views.
MR.. MoNTEITH.
Mr.. Thomas Monteith of Kalamazoo held that
the fifth charge wasprincipally worthy Of atten-
ton. He did not think the assembly could
recognize the Union Seminary SO long as it
sustained DR.. Briggs in the views he held.
REV. HARVEY 8. oJnDAN.
Mr.. Jordan OF Lansing presented a number
OF questions bearing upon the matter at issue.
He asked whether DR.. Briggs had lied when he
stated his views and positions. Had the err
rancy Of the Scriptures never before been called
in question? Would all those who voted to
sustain the appeal thereby become orthodox?
Would all who voted against sustaining it thus
become heretics2
REV. WIN. B. aREENsHIELDs.
Rev. Vim. B. Greenshields Of Duluth, Mimi,
said that they had been told again and again
that DR.. Briggs was the best interpreter of his
own language; but were they to take his expla-
nations when they ran counter to his inaugural2
Still he understood he had refused to make any
changes in his inaugural and he was not in
clined to vote not to sustain the appeal unless
he retracted or changed the statements in his
address.
REV. J. C. CONRAD.
Rev. Mr.. Conrad of Mankato, Mimi, said
that he had two sons who had studied under
DR.. Briggs, and who held him in the highest
esteem. They did not subscribe to his views,
but they desired to have him acquitted be-
cause he WAS not so uuorthodox as he seemed,
for many of his views were put forward simply
to bring him a little notoriety.
PASSING THE TIME LIMIT.
A few minutes after IL clock member rose
and called attention to the fact that the two
hours had expired. He wanted to know if 1t
would not require a motion to continue the
discussion.
The moderator said he hoped no member
would call up that question or they would get
into tangle.
DIR. Harsha moved that the discussion now
close. The motion was lost.
DR.. Roberts made the point, amid laug liter,
that the roll was being called and no one ex.
cept the person whose name was called could
be recognized.
The call Of the roll proceeded, the moderator
remarking jocularly that he would put back the
hands Of the clock.
CHARLES T. THOMPSON.
Mr.. Thompson Of Minneapolis said that he
had come here in favor Of sending the case bach
to the synod, but opposed to DIR. Briggs on the