The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-22
The Ex-Professor of Lane Seminary
Charges Many Errors on the Part of
the Presbytery and Ohio Synod.
ANOTHER BURNING QUESTION
Commissioners Discuss Supervi-
sion of Church Colleges.
Reports OF Work Among the Freedmen
and OH MISREPRESENTATION Presby-
terians and Other Religious Bodies.

SARATOGA, n. Y, May H.-Judicial case
No. l, which is the official designation of
the Smith case. was reported to the Pres
byterian General Assembly this morning.
with the recommendation that the appeal
be entertained, both parties having agreed
TO waive the right TO be heard on this ques-
ton. II the assembly votes to entertain
the appeal three hours VIII be given 10
Professor Smith to present his case, four
hours TO the committee prosecution and
additional hour to Professor Smith,
twenty minutes TO the Synod of Ohio and
two hours to the assembly. At the close
OF this time the vote is to be taken on each
allegation of error and ground of appeal
separately. 1t was also decided to make
the consideration OF this case a special
der for Thursday next at 10 O'Clock, TO con-
tinue till finished, having precedence over
/. all other orders
Professor Smiths appeal begins by recit-
Ing the charges and specifications, which
are. in brief, that in pamphlet entitled
biblical Scholarship and Inspiration" is
sued while he was a professor in Lane
Theological Seminary. at Cincinnati. he
taught that the Holy Spirit did not con-
troll the inspired writer's in their compost
ton of the Holy Scripture as to make
their utterances absolutely truthful, l. e.,
free from errors when interpreted in their
natural and intended sense The appeal
further recites the trial and conviction of
Professor Smith by the Cincinnati Presby
terry and it's finding OF suspension from the
ministry until he should renOunce his err
rors; also. the affirmation of judgment by
the synod Of Ohio Oct. 13. 1888. Professor
Smith then says: "Deeming myself ag-
grieved By this sentence ana unjustly de-
prived OF my rights and privileges as a
minister OF Jesus Christ, l gave due no.
filed the same with the stated clerk of the
Presbytery Within the time required by
the Book of Discipline. AS the meeting of
the synod OF Ohio, held In Cincinnati Oct
10 TO u, 1898. L presented my appeal, with
specifications of the errors OF the presby-
AS Professor Smith says, the appeal,
with the specifications of error. was found
judgment, the notice of appeal and the ap-
peal were read, and the synod decided
that the appeal should be entertained.
tunity TO be heard had been given to the
members m OF the synod the synod proceeded
OF error. No one of these was sustained,
the highest vote to sustain being ffty-one,
against seventy-eight not to sustain.
Thereupon the moderator declared the
Judgment of the presbytery of Cincinnati
TO be affirmed.
Having obtained no relief from the sy-
nod OF Ohio the Professor says, II now
appeal to the General Asse mbly, the high
est court of the church. pray your hon
Of the synod by which the decsion of the
preSbylery was confirmed. pray you To
issue the case in accordance with justice
and the constitution of the church. to re-
verse the decision of the lower court and
10 restore to me the exercise of my minis
try, from which have been excluded,
having in submission to the discipline OF
the church suffered this privatioD for the
space OF eighteen months. In support of
this appeal. as already reclted in the no.
tice OF appeal, allege twelve errors in the
action OF the synod, each being a refusal
on the part OF the synod TO correct erro-
neous action taken by the presbytery of
"First-The synod erred in not sustaining
my first specification of error In my appeal
from the presbytery of Cincinnati. which
was as foIiows: Allowing members of the
presbytery 10 sit in judgment on the case
after they had published opinions on my
guilt.
''Second-The synod erred in not sustain
appeal as aforesaid, TO wit, refusing to
sustain my objections to the preliminary
proceedings
''Third-The synod erred in not sustain
Ing my third specification of error, 10 wit:
Not sustaining my objections to the suffi-
cheney OF charge In form and legal effect
Fourth-The synod erred in not sustain
ing my fourth specification of error, 10 wit:
Not sustaining my other objections to the
sufficiency OF charge in form and legal eff
feet
"Fifth-The synod erred in not sustaining
my NTH specification of error, to wit: Not
sustaining my objections TO the various
specifications under charge as insufficient
In form and legal effect
Sixth-The synod erred in not sustaining
my sixth specification OF error, to wit: De
Ginning to receive testimony:
Seventh-The synod erred in not sustain
ing my seventh specification of error. to
wit: Allowing the vote of member of
the court to be recorded and counted in his
'Eighth-The synod erred in not sustain
ing my eighth specification of error to
wit; Sustaining charge and finding me
"Ninth-The synod erred in not sustain
ing my ninth specification OF error. to wit:
The action OF the court sustaining specif-
cations ]. 2. 3, L. ), s. 9. 10. IL. under charge
2 was against the evidence and not sup
.'Tenth-The synod erred I'm not sustain
ing my tenth specification OF error to wit:
Sustaining charge and finding me guilty
tanning my eleventh specification OF error
. 70 wit: sustaining these specifications I'M
''Twelfth-The synod erred in not sustain
ing my twelfth specification of error to
wit: Imposing on me the penalty of sus-
pension from the ministry. which penalty
would be excessive even If were guilty OF
the offense charged
These errors, as alleged having been
committed by the presbytery of Cincinnati
and having been confirmed by the Synod of
Ohio. are brought 10 the notice of your
venerable body and submitted 10 your
judgment. in the hope that your action may
be in accordance with Justice and right
and may promote the peace and purity of
the church"
THE SEMINARY QUESTION.
The hour for consideration of the ques-
ton OF seminary control having arrived.
the floor was taken by Thomas McDougan,
OF Cincinnati. who announced that he de-
sired TO explain the third recommendation
of the committee. He denied any desire or
purpose OF Capitalization. With regard 10
the present seminaries the assembly can do
nothing without the consent of the semi
naries and the property remains just
where IL is. III can only interfere In the
case OF misuse OF funds. IN regard TO which
a trust has been declared. DIR. McIpugall
spoke eloquentiy of the benefit 10 both
seminaries and the church that would fol-
low supervision. He was questioned BY