Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, May 15, 1874, Page 2

(&) £ THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE: FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1874 PROF. SWING.. Conclusion of the Argu- ment of the Prose- cutor. He Explains How He Was *+ Drawn Into This Con~ troversy. And Declares that He Has No Personal Feelings What- evers Ho Retracts His Remark About Impeaching the Pres- i bytery. The Reovs Mr. Noyes Deglns IHs Argument for tho De- fenses And Declazos the Charges Too Weak . to Stand On, He Exnlains What a * Local Gospel,” Etc., Mean. And Thinks Prof. Critical. Patton Too MORNING SESSION. Tho Chicago Prosbytery met at half-past 9 o'clock yesterday morning, the Rov. Arthur itchell in-the ohsir, The attondance was as largo as usual, among Lho outside clergymen presont bejng the Rev. Dr. Ryder and Dr. Lverts, TIE PROVIDENCE OF oD, Prof. Patton resamed his argument, calling at- tention to the thirteenth specification s Iu u sermon printed on our about 16tk Soptember, 1672, from 11 Peter, ii,, 0, ho mads uso_of looso und ungiiarded lunguago respecting the Providence of God, In support of this allegation ho read an nbstract from a sermon of 'rof. Swing, published in the Zimes of Sept. 10, 1872, the doctrine of It boing that s man might think too Jittle of him- eolf. Ho also read what the Confeesion of Taith had to sny upon tha subject, leaving it for the Presbytory to reconoilo its laugusge it they could with that of Prof. Swing. NOT HIS DELIEF, BUT N18 UTTERANGES. Tn many 3! the specifications on which ho had commentod the charge bad not been that Prof. Bwing bolieved error, but that he taught error. Ho had read the passages in his sermous tonch- ing it, and, s far as it bad been praciicable, pro- eonted the context. All the sermons from which quotations lind been mado tore in evidonco, nnd accesgible to tho members of the Court, and they could see whether ko had dona just'co in the quotations; and it would bo the privilege of tho detense, it such injustice had beon done, to moko 1t apparent, 1t wag simply impossible that he should read all the sermons through, in order thet he might justify the use of oue or two sen- tences by wuy of cominent. It might bo argued, and porbaps” the opinion hed been exprossed, that tho utteranca of error, or of sontonces nl- leged to be error, was a verv difforent thiog {rom & direct aftirniation of lus (Swing's) disbe- liof of cortain doctrives, The point was not edltorlal, that he (8wing) would. Liave had'somos thing to aay by way of oxplanation—thnt tho ox. plauntion would be couohqd In eoh: frank nnd outsnokon _torme that {6 would sijonco doubty and roiustato him in tho confidonoo of thoso who loved him, notwithstand. ing thoy folt that it was not rlgiht for him to ohallenge tho . nuthority of‘any portfon of tho inopired word of God, o bad Doon disappointod. Tho explanation did not moot with his viows of what was truo, and - that.being tho oaso, having tho role-reaponsibili- ty of the journal upen his hands, ho. conld. not avod continuing, tho discussion which was furced upon him.' Ie dosired to couduct the dieoussion in way whick wag_aroditablo to Lis ouition as a gontleman, nnd as & mombor of tho rosbyterian Churolt, and 'na a common Drcsby- ter with Prof; Bwing. How far ho hiad sucaeod: od ha loft for the public to wsny, and_He would bow reapoctfally to tholr vordioh Tho viows brought out by Prof: Bwing in the controvoray woro of such a character, wore so pronounced'in their hostinty to whathe (Patton) roparded as tha dactrics of plenary Inspiration’of tho Borip- tures,—n dootrine which had roccived tho ssuo~ tion of the Prosbytery not mfi. ago,—Lhis views woro in suob dirgot conflict with it, that ho did not lesitato to say that Prof. Biwiug, holding such viowa, with tho vowa of the Presbytoriau Church, could not consistently romain ln hor communion as a inimster. Ha (Patton) donbted his souudness, and his doubts woro lonest, and baoved upou o perusal of Prof. Bwing's published utterances, Ilo had no word lo sny in solf-vindi- cation,. nothing to way in reference to thase who honeatly and sinceroly diffored from him as to the propriety of Lis exprossing the doubts as ho did, or s to tho proprioty of saving that ho bad thom, Ifo bad thom, and he expressod them, and tho oxsmnslon had brought upon him a weight of odium which be had ot anticipated. Tho proseoution of the ecase, ho regrotied to may, bad not removed those doubts, had not lesgenod them, but had ouly sorved to vindieata him ns to tho justica of ks former position, and lio wan randy to sey now thet he not only donoted that I'rof, Sy\rlng did not hold cortaln dootrines of the Prosbyterian Church, but that he did not bellava thom, PLENARY. TASPIRATION OF THL DINLE. Tho 8peaker thon went on to prove from Prof. 8wing's sermons that ho did not believe in tho plenary iuspiration of the Biblo. Tha ques- tion was not whether ho bolioved 1n tho inepira- tion of tho Soripturss,but what ho maant by the Liad adinltted on the floor of the Pmnbyur{ that. ha dfd -not: raceive and adopt the Confosalon of Falth ne contslntng tho syatem of daotrino taught in.tho Word of God. 1o.did not moau to any: that lio- 8ald g0 in 8o many words, but his loa conld not Lo construed in any. othor light han that ho did not rogard himnolf as holding thodoutrines of tho Confossion of Faith, or 58 bound to hold them as n Prosbyterian ‘miniator. o had snld that “*n distinotion oxiated botsveon Prosbytorinnism as formulated In past tintes and - Prasbytorinnism aotual,” Ilo- neyor- heard of that uutl ho besrd it from tho lips of frof. 8wing, 1f thoy woro not to hokito the formu- Inted, theology of tho Prosbytorlan Guurch} ha wantod to know what was tho Laajs of the Yros- byterinn crood, Wint was the “‘Ohuroh aotu- al"? The Church of Plttaburgh, which waa Lield in tho grasp of a * Calvinistic Hoercules”? Or the Church of Ohloago, which had a *local Gonpol;" and was '*n modo of virtne, and not a Jumblo of dootrines,"—**an attempt at ovangel- 1zing with a radius Iong onough and a cjroum~ forouco of sutliciont dimensions to,take iu both Robort Patteraon and Robort Collyee"? 1f the DProsbytory aoceptod that, thoy 'lind started upon thae high rond of latitudinariantsm, which would embraco ovory mau who said that ho bolioved in an historio Christ, and in that senso regarded him-aa his Savior. Thu{ bolievad that thero was n position in tho world for the Prosby- terion Churoh, that she had n functipn to dis~ chiargo, that hor basis. was o doolrinal busis,-— the Oonfession of Faith, which had boen ratified ond afivmed by both Presbyterics of tho Churol whon the reunion was effocted. Having acinowlodged that ho had given hin sorvices to the Churoh actunl,” was it not fair to aflirm that he had not. given -them to tho chureh listorle? DProf. Bwinzf liad mado a new Coufession of Faith, and said #his was the basis upon which o would stand, and that if tho Prosbyteriun Church would accopt it as hor busis of dogirine, sbio could bave his sorvices; if'not, thou he was ready to oross the boundary which sopatated him from the Chutolt whioh he loved and tho athor Churches to_ which ho was near of kin, ' [Smilos.]. 1fho (Pattuti) had put o wrong construction upon-the lauguago of Prof. Bwing;'{t was a con- struction in whioh he was supported. by the Rrusu and tho publie, and in which scatiment inst aud, West was bolng exprossed, NO FATALISY IN TIIE QNURQI, Tho nccugod had ropudiated ‘tha doctrines which looked townard a‘durlc fatalism, and taught that religion was a despair. ‘I'hore wore no duo- inspiration of ti oBcrlpmwu. Ho (Swinfi) snid 1 his doclaration that that was ono of tho doo- tiines on whice he was willing to moet o skentl- al aud sinful world, Ho demred to know if there was n Unilarisn or o Universallst who ap- praciated the poetry of Shakspeare, who would uot do tho same thing, Ilo snid he used tho word *finspiration” in its evangelical sonsoj aud ho (Pation) was as much in the fog a8 over, for what did Prof. Swing moan by ** evangelic~ al? IHow much slmpler it would have beon for him to bavo eaid ‘I believe in the dactrines of tho Qonfession of Faith 18 to the Inepiration of the Soriptures, a8 to the divimity of Olirist, as to the Tinity, as to Justification by TFaith, aud as to futuro punishment, sud I beliove them ex animo,” Had ho doua that ? In tho absenco of any interpretation, or any explicit avowal on bis (Swing's) part as to what ho meant about the mnepiration of the Scriptures, would it bo thought unjust if ho (Patton) undertook Lo im- poso upon his langungo n moauing, fodivg the material for doing so 1 his own published words ? Duriug all the discussion which hio had Lad with Prof, Swing in the Inferior, Lo had tried to "got from him an oxxrouslau of opinion 28 to what inspiration was. Again and again he bad asked the quostion whethor ho believed God wroto the Biblo—whethor the Heriptures wero iuapired in such n souse that God_did, by His Buly Spirit, tench tho writers of the Now and Old Testament, and that ho stood in such a rolation to them that the holy men of old sraku a8 thoy wore moved by tho ~Holy Glost, 8o that what God eaid Tafor eaid, and_what Petor said God said. That was what the Presbytorian Ohurch bolioved,—what evan- gollenl Christendom boliaved. And in vindica- tion of God's truth 1u tho question respecting the plenary inspiration, and the infallible au- thority of God’s Word as it waa declaved 1o the 0ld and Now Testament, he appealed not to the sympatbios and tho support of the Presbytorian lurch slona, but tn the sympeshics and tho eupport of evaugelical Olristondom, sud thoy were with him, ¥ o TRE 10071 PRALAL What did Prof. Swivg mean by *‘inspiration ?" ‘Wizt did he moan whoa hie spid tuat the “ Serip- tures wers givon by inapiration of God?” Did ho bolieve thai tho 109th Psulm waa written by the Ioly Ghost in such n sonse as that what Dayid said, tho third person of the blessod and adorable Trinity said ? Did Do balieve that tho sontimonts oxpressed by David in that tbat Prof. Swing did not boliove in these doc- trines, ond, if be did bolioye, and taught error. so much the worse. If it could be provon ftbat & man was incompotont, and ignorand of the effect of drugs, that mght bonroagson for his unot admivistering them ; but, if the man was well educated, aod familinr with the phermacopir, sad it conld bo proved thiat.ho ndmunistored poison, ho (Patton) did not care how learncd ho was, ho was nobt gong to his #hop. [Lougbter.] 'The point was not what Prof. Swing belioved, but what ho said; for it wos ay & teacher thut cliarges were made ageinst him. o Nor was it necossary that the language used by Prof, Swins shontd be proven to b contraty to the Confession of T'aith, or to ba iucapable of & coustruction favorable to sound doctrine, for the Prosbytery to muke it & subject of judicial action. Because, ;,-muung that, in certain ox- pressions usod, it was probablo that a favorable coustruction could be put upon the langnage if ihe natural menning of it and the natural con- struction which the human mind would put upon it was one which was unfavorable to sonnd doc- trine and vital pioty, then it was tho duty of the Court to tell Prof, Swing so, to express its dia- epproval, and express it in terms measured by the offcnse, To show that" Lo was correet in this view, lio quoted precedonts {from the New School Digest, saying that the Gen- aral Asnombly wont 8o far in exercising its os- ccinl functious as to eay to & man he must not 0 “‘ unbrppy 1 bLis expression.” ILven if Prof. Bwing exprexsed donial, and promised to do right in the future, the Presbytery, under the decisiona quoted, could not unvoid entering its dieapprovol of tenchings - which had caused & wi(ileuprend error i regurd to Prof, 8wing's po- gitlon. JUSTIFICATION DY FAITH, ¢ 1lis (Swing's) position on the ductrine of justis fieation by faita was not u matter of question. If the Court woutd read the sermon on ** Good Works " and “ Faith,” he thought they would bo of o unanimcus opinion that the views of Prof. Bwing, upon this cardinal dootrine of Protost- antisin, wore not the viows of the Proshytorian Churely, and the viows which would bo accepted by any branch of the Lvangelical Church— Methodist, Presbyterian, DBaptist, ana Con- gregationalist. He objuctud to the views of Prof. Swing,—and his objections were grave, —nn the subject of salvation, which were that only mon laoked forward wilth joy who could swectly look back,—that Heavon was a helght to which men rose in the docds of tius life, "If Lo (Patton) preached the tiospel of Josus Christ in such terminology, it would be impossible for him to go to a dylng an and tell bim if bo beliaved in the Lord Jesus Christ ho would bo saved. Ho nh‘jucred to Prof. 8wing's viows becauso thoy did infustico to the righteousuess of tho Lord Josus Ciwst. The Gospel they prenched was the Goue l)ul of tho rishtuflunnfisu of Christ, of salvation hrough the blood of Christ,—tha Gospal which had lent inspiration to overv movement whereby tho cruse of Christ bad boon furthered, Ho ob- Jootod bocause the views ministored cither to Boll-rightoousncss or to despair,—taught that mon'wero eaved by their own worky,—that faith saved them hecanso It led thom 'to n holy life,—~thnt galvation meant a holy lifo; thero- foro ho who was oxpectant of snlvation nnd bad an sesurance of hope in heaven, wus he wha was fiolv; and he hoped for henven—nc- cording to tha legitimate consequonce of Prof. 8wing’s preaching—in proportion to his personal Loliuesn, ‘That was uot tho doctrine lesined in the Epustio to tho Romans, The Prosbytorian Church did not teach the *‘durk doctrines of de- spuir™; and Lo objoctod hecruse Prof, Swing taught thut Christisuity was an exalted mornlity, THE INTERIONR, The speaker thea Punund to the conslderation of tho closing specifientions, relutiva to tho de- ninl of the plenary inspication of the Bible. I'hio speotfications liad nn historical iutercst, ns re- luted to the prosecution. Little did he think when he wrote the editorial in the Juterior last fall that it wonid culminate in wueh a scone us that befove him, - When he took charge of that papor ho know of tha doubts which had boon expresucd with reapact to Prof, Hwing's thool- ogy; and he wroto the editorlul with an Idon of apologizing for lls viows s far ag Lp could, nod to show, 88 far as possiblo, that tho intorprotations which had boen put upon his (Swing's) language were, porhapa, ox- aggerations, aud voi, with tho heat iutent, tho most charitabla construction, tho Liudest of feoling, aud in bis dosiro to vindicato the ropu- tauon of & Chrintlun brother, whose hund he Dind not st thot tihus waken, aud whoso faco ho Pealm were scatumonts put into his mind by the Holy Guost, 8o that _they might be at liberty to sy not only that David smd this, but with equal gronrgety Aoy tho Holy Ghost said it? If he did baliove it, it was very singulor that ho should speak cf the psalm ns having & *‘temporary signifionnco,” and com- ared it with the Star-Spangled Banuer, and say flmf. it lost its value when tho wars of tho Jows Wero over. That L'rof, Swing did not boliove that tho 109th *Panim was inspirod, must bo porfectly plajn to any one who was unprejudiced or unbinsed, Ho thou read what ho (Bwing) wrote in the Inlerior iu Septomber, 1873 ¢ The proniinenco given to the 109th Pralm arises only from thio fuct tuat it has long Leen & public test of the valuo of suy glven theory of inspiration, & What did that mean ? 1§ moant this: *‘ You believa in the plenary inspiration of the Berip- turo, do you ? Do vou believo that 109th Pealm was inspired ? It has long been a tost a8 to the value of any given thaory of inspiration,” Did it over bother the brothren? Can tho) detect God's nuthority cven in the 100th Paalm Thon again ¢ This i ono of tho places whers tho rational world nllm,\lu to puuse and apply our abuudant and boastful words, Whatbosstful words ? They said they belioved the Soriptured were given by i.nnrh‘ntlun of God; that inasmuch as Josus gave his authority and sanction to the Old Testiment in words which distinotly efiimod that not one jot or tittle could pass away or be broken,—nn the author- ity of Jesns Christ oolored everyibing to which Lo ottached his signature. There was nothing boasting about that. Tho Apostle Paul kunew what he was about; and, kuowing what ho was about, could not have based any such argnment upoun any such portivn of the Scripiures unless tha whole Beripturos were iuspired. Laul's opiatlo took tho powition that the Soripture was iuspirod ; aund therefore bo challenged them to prove that it was not positive, that it was not simply God manifosted in the flesh, If the fuct wont iuto history that tho Presby- tery wau 1 doubt about Prof.” Swing's views of the 108th Pealwm,the intellizonce of nations would huve. to legislute upon tho quustions of con- struction; nud if Prof. Bwing did not Indorse what Froudo, the nationalist, suid of Lhe psalm, be would give up reading Eng:ish, and pro- nounce himse!f & fool. [Laughter.] The Presbytary having pronouucad its opinion in favor of plennry inspiration, and given ita Jjudgment agewst Dr, McKaig, could not fail to pass ssutenco against one proven x(;umy of such o charge as thet for which Prof. Bwing wus arraigned. In concluding tho discuasion of tho firat charge, Prof, Patton read from the Dible to prove that Prof, Swing bad denled the authorivy of the Word of God. TEISONAL. In viow of the evidonco he hod sddnced, and the argumonts ho Lind pressed, ho loft it in the hands of the Prosbytory, asking them to dismiss all prejudico to lux(gmtiug altogether the quea- tious involved, #o far as they concorned the per- sonnl relutions of the prosecutor und tho ac- cused, and to not in view of tho testiniony, with thoir ldow of_ tho rosponsilnlities whioh “restod upon & Presbyterian ministor, ahd Judging from their own personal oxpotience as lnmistors and oldors ns to what conetituted ildelity in the pase toral oftice. 1lo asked if ho had snid n rash thing or u tnid thivg.—if he had transgrossed tho bounds of propriety or crossed thelimits of truth, ~—whother hoe had not acted in all seriousnosy and all sorrow, with good impulsos in his hoeart, aud with no othor dosire than that of vindicat~ ing thoglory of God and subserving tho futer- osta of the Church, and whothor hu was not vight In afliiming that Prof, Bwing had not boen fuwthful in maintaining tho truths of the Gospoel, and lnd oot boen sithful in the exerciss of his duties ay such mivister, A RETRACTION. To then thanked tho L'resbytory for the kind atteniion they had {lnld to s nrgument, and tho Mloderator for his forbearance, npulug\zing for huving said tuat ho wonld impench the Proa. bytery boforo the Bynod if they aoquitted Prof, Bwing., That rematk bad excaped h s 1Ipa in the beat of dobate, and he retracted it, and hoped ilie Prosbytory would recolve tho rotrastion, [Applause.] THE HECOND OMARAE— (hat Prof, Swing did nut_** siuveroly reseive and adopt the Conle:sion of Falth ne contrimug the system of doourine tanghy in tho Holy Barip- wres"—was then taken up. He proposed Lind not scon more than onee or twice, ho was ‘construined, ay tho exponent of roliglons opin- lon, o faras bo was iu the nowspapor, to #ay something by way of protest aguinst asentiment which, If it oxpressod g (8wing's) honest opin- jou, in iy fll’nllun'u fudgment earrlod with it the duvufaliof God's Hible, Ko had hopod when reply was mude, it mndo at all, to the to {)tova that ullogation by tho testimouy af Br. Bunfoldt and oy Prof. Bwing's soroions, Aud if any one should say that an socusiad party could not bo made to criminato hinmel?, e ap- peuled to tho logal profossion to sustuln him in the positlon thaf, while tho declaration of tho acousied would not substantiate bis innoceuco, tho admission of tho seoused was aufilclont ovis donco to bubsiautintd huw guilt, Prof, Bwiug trines of fatnlism in the Prasbytorian Oaurch, aud whon ho (8wing) left out thosa docttinus, ho could have loft out uo othor doctrines than thoro which spoko of Gud's sovereiguity, of pre- doatination, and of Inability ; aud1f Lo (Swing) mesantto eay that ho had loft out thoso duc- trinay, holnd feft avery imflurmn sloment of tho Gunfossion of Fauith belund him, sudin no other gt could the lnugunfio of his sermons bo construed. He had said: that ho loft bonind lum tho dootrine of hell, as it was taugit in tho Coufession of Falth, with suob terriblo fihflunnas, and that tho Presbvterian Church bnod pan- derod to iufidelity. ‘'hat doctrivo was taught in tho Confospion of Faith, and it he (Swing). did nat beliove it, it could not bo #ad of him that he recoived tho syatom of dootrine taught in the Confessiou of F'awth 3 and tust doctring was part ot tho syutom, sud. by no mesns an unimportant urt, 2 SUUFELDT'S TESTDIONY. The Professor thon roviowed the Lostimony of Br, Bhufoldt, which showed that he (Bwing) had abanduned one or more of the five points of Calvinism. 1If- ho had abandonod one of (hem, the mubsinuce of the issuo was proved. , It was uot nocessary for tho prosccutor, to male out his caso, to Y{mvn overy solitary item in the allogation, @ proposod to show that Prof. Bwing had abuudonod the five points of Calvinism,—though tho issuo did not turn upon the fve points. Ho had tought tho doctrine of Sabellinnism— given lis approval to tho doctrine that Qhris- tianty adaitted of thioo oflices in tho Fatlier, Son, aud Holy Ghont, and ridiculed the doc- trino of tho threencss of ono, aud:.the oncucss of Lhreo, Having' taught that doctrine, it was fair to infor thut lie belioved it. Ho had donied the doctrine of justitioavion by faith, and mada uso of lnuguago regurding it which was not in keep.ng with the docrine a8 taught in.the Cou- fousion of Friths Ho did not boliove in tho in- spivation of tho Soripturcs. Iis utterances wore mot in haunony with the: doc- trine of the plonary inspiration of the Beriptures, as that doctrine wus pold in all tho reformod churches, formutated in tho Coufos- sion, and allirmod in tho_rocent decision of the Presoytory of Cuicagn. On tho presumption that he (Swing) tanght what he belioved,—spoks his mind when be apoke fn tho pulpit,—it was a fair inforence thnt ho did not beliovo the dootrines, if he taught contiay dootrinos, THREY CONTINGENOIRS, Thero wore threo contingencios in the way of an acquittal on tho chargo of herosy. Firat, whetlier the language whioh iv was alloged con- travened tho standards of tho Presbyterian Cliurel was cnpable of a constraction in har- mony with them, withous violonca to Lhe rules of coostrucnion, 8econd, whether Prof, Swing would disavaw tho docttines which it was alloged ho held, Did ho eay thot ho belloved the doc- trine of tho Trluitymnd the doctrine of Inspira- tion, as thoy woto taught in tho standards of tho Oburch ? Did ho veliove, and would ha tay thot bo belisved, and would ho plant himsolf squately upon tho standards of the Church pub~ licly, to tho offect that ho did betiovo tuo doc- triue of Justification by Iaith, of Prodeating~ tion? If ha did, thon fwo contingoncics would bave bean met. But thero wasn third contim- cucy, Would he disavow the doctrines whict t wns alloged ho held? Would ho disavow the Lieretical doctrines imputed to him 7 Would o aftivm bis belief in tho doowmnes which ho wns alloged to impugn? ‘Ihese worae the conditions ‘which were to bo satisflod before the Prasbytory conld acquit Prof, Swing of tho sacond shaigo intho complaing, and he hoped they would keop tho subjoct betors thom if they intonded to re- gard ecclosinstionl precedents. Tho Creed of tha rosbytorinn Church wag the Coulcsston of Fuith, Tho issue betweon him and Prof. Swing wes not an issuo that was over raised by any person who ever claimed to Thold the Confessiou of Faith in its integrity, It Wwas not an issuo betwoen thoe Old Bzhool and the Now Behool. ‘the issues raised were thoso which would have beon fought out upon the lovr of' the Now School Presbyieries with as much zoal as thoy would be on that of the Old Beliool Presbytorios, They were issues which wont to tho foundation of Christianit, which taught the Christian tho Rule of Faith, which roferred tothe ‘Lrinity, and tothe ground on which thoy rosted their hopes of Heaven. SUMILIING UP, The caso waa in tho bnnds of the Presbytery, Thoy hud hourd the ovidence and the argument. They kuew that it bad beon proven that Prof, Bwing used oquivocsl language in regmd to vital dootrines s thut ko had noglected to preach the ereat docirines which underlay the fuith; that to had derided tho standards of the- Pres- byterisn Courch, not only with rospecs to tho . doctrines which wero peonliar to it, but with reepect to tho doctrines ‘whicl underlsy the whole schemo of Christinnity ; that ho had mado fulso sud dangerous siate- ments with regard to ouc aud another of tho grand dootrines of the Word of Gad ; and, finnlly, that he hiad tanght contracy to the doo- tring of Juetifiention, and of the inepiration of tho Holy Seriptures ; aud, in vindioating himself ot tho bar of the Presbytery, in answer to the charges, admitted thut tho * Oburch aotnal was something difforont from the Onuroh historie ' that ho pronohed that tho Church Pres. bytorian was tho Church Evavgelieal, and tho Evangelieal dootrines wero the only oncs held by the Presbyterian Ohurch. Ifo liad afllemod that ho hud dropped somo of thedo dootrines ; ho bed boen vroved to have dopurted from othi- ther;"” man {s fn dangerof “ putting asundar.” ntil ::mmmllyI thoro waa penco and bappy follow- ship within tha bounds of thin Prosbytery. In , ono branch of the Church thero had unhnppily, boou Atrife fn tho days that nre gonoj but in tho gonoral. good runlln;& conag- quont upon - the rounion, past differonces scomed dostined to a spaody obtivion; and thero was ovory promise thint wo should sbundantly ronlize “how good ‘and how ploasant o thing it 18 I9r brathron to dwell togother in unity.” But from: our ' dgop drosm of posoe wo-have been suldonly awakened. How it enmo abouk you all 0w, and'I will not taxo your timo, upon which T shnft noconsarily have tb-mako shich largo do- mands, to rocouut the atory, I will, thorefore, Eronund at onco to tho business. In wAnd; and, ofora entoriny argument whivh s haon. mado. baloro you by tho proaccucor In this caso, I desire to ask your attontion far a little tiro,to TAY FORM OF THE COMPLAINT gnnn which the defeudant 18 nrraignod at your 0T, When thin Indictment was prosonted, the de-~ foudant was domoywhat peculisrly placad. ~If hls coungol had moved to quash it, thero wonld have 0on au, lnstsot outery, on tho. part of the proso- outor und Lis frlonds, that wo wero atlompting to smother inquiry, and to avold o fatr inventiga~ tion. If wo made no such motlon, wo feol our~ ors,—thnt lio bad pard no_attention to many of them, and ho (¥'stton ) left it with tho Preuby- tory to say whethor Chargos 1 and 2 had been sustained, [Applsuso,) I'he Presbytory then adjourned until 8 o'elook in the aftornoon. T AFTERNOON SESSION. Upon remssembling, Mr. Noyes, counsel for Prof, 8wing, commoncod his argnment, tho room being crowded,—moro peoplo boing In attend- anco than at any other session thuy far in the trinl, ARGUMENT FOR TIE DEPENSE, Aftor goyiug that he hod beon siuforlng for twolvo hours from n somowhat serious indinposts tlon, nnd ouly that an oxtreme desire that the cate should ho submitted s oaly us possible to the Iresbytory prowpted lim to apeal, Mr, Noyes addvesued tho Court as follows ; We aro surroundad to-day by that whioly, if wo avo not willfully blind, must appesr to allas & ‘‘groatand soro trouble,” Sunrcoly has the honey- maoon passed which follawad tho hayppy marring e of tho Old aud Now Bobaol branches of the Prenbyterian Ohuroh, whon a new dauger arlsos to throaton our peaco, ' The woores of voloos which were raised in jogful thankegiving to God over that blessed union, have hardly died away, wl.on nuddenly our hearts are pameod and filled with auxtety, ‘'by {he presouce of unuxpeoted poril. Ubon the macrlod lifo of these Churohos, over ail of whioh & #pitit of ponce aud love hud been broathiod, devk clouds now begin to arse threatouing storm, and wrath, sud roin, Ib would soom that " whom God ‘hath jolnod to- golves la tho position of scoming Lo approve of tho indlotment aa correat, both. In form and i subatance. We did not wish to move to,quash it, nor wara wa willing to ba underatood a8 rognrd- ing 1t tightly drawn, Inthis statp of things1 dosired, ot J\n outact, to, make an explanatol atatomont, But to this objection was madp, ani B0 the cana wont to trinl, In both iho obarges horo exbibitod, apd in nearly all the spealfica- tion undor thom, thore was aitch an OBYIOUA AND GLARING DEFECT, olther of substanca or of form, that,in any puroly. oquitablo and ln;fll. not to say tooh- nical, viow, . thoy ought npver to lhave boen' ontortained, Thoy should have been turned ncontinontly ont of Conrt, In support.of this statomon, it will bo nocesanry 1o. considor. (1) the nature of a chiarge (2) of & spocification, aud thon (3) show how nolthor the charges of this indictment, nor the specifications by \l;?zloh it 1a gought to provoe thom, are such as to malo a valid caso for trial. In discusslng thoso points, Tob 1t fivat bo dle- tinctly admitted that the oxtromo nicoty and ro- finomont of erlticlsm with whiol Indictmonts are handled in civil couits, wonla be quite ont of placo in an accloslpsticnl tribunat liko this, And yotit will he ndmitted by all cortain rules foundes on matural Justico, which ought to bo obsorved, and h:[d invailablo by ecclosiastical courts. Bo- causo an judictmont here may not proporly bo handled {n that romorscless way which provails in civil courts, it doos not follow that it may b drawn in such a,wny a8 to violato, in its charges and in {ts spocificatious, the most obvious prin- ciples of justico. DBut that, in tho.case before us, this bas boon done it will not bo dificult to provo, that thoro " aro A OHARGE. Tho goneral tarm oliarge may bo undaratood a8 nnglymg to tho whole accusation made agninst the acousod porson. This scousation consists of two distinet parts: tho frat, which i speojally.called tho chargo, conatsts in desiynat- ing tho goneral offenso 0f which the acoused is chinrgod; and the second, which is called the spac oation to the charge, cousists in tho alleg- ing of aortain spocified acts done by the ucouscd, which are supposed to constitute or prove tho general uffense nawed inthe charge, A charge, 1t ia plain, ought to sot furth some ono goneral offense, which i wo exceptional tn ite chnracter as to imperativaly cnll for opclosiasti- cel censure. Tho charge 1nust also olearly and distinctly define the offeuso, so that the no- cused may know precisely of what he is accused, Vague charges aro objectionable, and unfair, to tho last degreo, Applying now thoere principles to the charges fn thns indiotment, what should be onr judgmont upon them. It I8 noviceablo that thoy'ara . TOTH NEGATIVE IN FORM. The prosoccution charges that tho defendant Las uot boen * faithful and zealous in maiutain- iug tho truths of the Gospel,” and that ko ** does na} sh;cu'roly roceivo and adopt the confession of faith." The firat chm”fu ‘Is indofinite to the ostent of nob naming at all any puvishable offanso, Would tho proaecutor como inta this Cowt and claim that bo hios boen and is faithful a8 a ministor? Buch a boast, if ho wore to malko it, would of it~ sell bo a swift witncsa sgainst him for unfaithinloosa, You caunot run the ling. betwoon Lhe faithful and the wun- fuithfnl. You cannot fiud the poiut where faithfulnoss cuds sud rufsithfaloess beging ; so Lhat this side that point s min may go uncen- sured of his brotbren, aud boyona it bo justly oxposod to thoir sentenco of condemnation. All oro zeslous, fuithful, and diligent in somo do- groo, buk in soma dogroes, also, all como ehort. ‘I'o 8oy, therofo.o, thnt & man s unfaithful and wanting Tn weal, is oimply to afirm a faoc which is a8 true of tho proscoutor as it is of tho do- fondant, which is true of the mombors of this court, and of sll ministera-of the Goavel, * Lot him that is without sin nmang you cast tho first stono.” This chargo does not ombrace, there- fore, & punisbaolo offonse atall. In the Presby- toriun Church, a minister who lacks zeal and is unfaithful, does not tharsby becomo smeuablo to discipline. Hence, to make unfaitbfulness tho basis of o formal charge, is n great injustico, The sanks of the Presbytorian miniatry nre full of noble and self-sactiticin, ‘men; but there is not one of them all agains whom this first charge could not wiuh perfect trath be brought, And Lience a charge so utterly vagno and indofinito aa this cannot justly be on- tortained by & judieial body. Nor is the vaguo- ness at all rolisved whon wo coma to examino, as in due timo Ishall do, the specifications to the cuarge. OITARQE SECOND is a*ill moro objectionable. It arraigna the nc- oused, not tor what he teaches, lot us carefull obeorye, but what e thinks. 1t is true, indeed that the specifications might embody faots that would 80 revoal the state of the respondent's mind a8 to ghow that ho does ok roceive the confession of snith. Uhoy might do this, but they do not. Tney contai only tho proseoutor's own inferonces and conolusions which he draws from Prof, Bwing's languago, Tho charges aro founded upon tho supposud state of a man's miud, and not upon any olour and naquestionn- bly heretical uttorances of his lips. Lo judge thio heatt, is tao prerogative, not of the prosecn- torin this case, not of the mombersof this Court, but of God nlone. LET ME ILLUSTRATE what I mean, by saying thao the specifleations under these charges aro o indefinite as not to sustain or make munifest what is the offonye to which the respondent is to answer, The very first speoificacion under Oharge 1 hegins with sotting forth what? A fact? Not ot all; but simply the conclusion of the prosccutor, in Lhis langunge ; ** He 18 1n tho habit of using equiv- ocul langungo"—who is the judge of equivocal innguagze?—*to tho manifest ‘injury of his roputation a8 a Christiau minister, and to the miury of tho cause of Christ, SPEOIFIOATION THREE ! ‘Ho has manifeated a culpublo disrogard of tho es- sentia) doctrines of Christianity by giving the welght of his intluence to tho Unitarisn denominution, aud by tho unworthy und extravagant ludation In tha pilplt, aud through.the preea of John Stuart Mill, a man who was koown not to have belleved in the Chrle- tian roliglon, In that the softing forth of o fact 7—of aun ast which cloatly roveats and manifepts to this Court the guilt of the respondent? On tho contrary, it is tho setting forth only of a conclusion of the prodecutor Lilmeolt. o sermon aloronid, Muguige fa omployed n tho sermo 3 wl}lch 1s duf-nuud'ny 10 thv slundurdsof the Prosbyte- riun Church, Agaln an oxhibition of the proscoutor’s infer- onces. PEOLFIOATION NINE, - Tio has giveu hls approval, in the pulplt, to the doo- trino commonly known un Sibellianfan, ‘Whajover hg.may have done in the judgment of Prof, Patton, cortaiuly there are multitudes vho have mado thomsolvos familiar with tho fnots of this trislas they have boen devetopod, and sproud out bofore you, who do not at all agres with him in the conelusion which ho sots forth here, that Prof. Bwing is & Babellian, and that Lio hag given his publio .mi‘mvnl to thut doe- trine. limlghc fio on through every ono of the spoclfcations which are sot forthunder these olrges, and show that thoy are all, wo far as they muko out nuythlufi oulpable, ulmxgly tue Judgments and views of tho proscoutor himself. TILE BPEOIFTOATION, Tcome next to spouk of tho specification. And hore in doflning what the spocification “is, and what it should embrace, I follow the highest authority (0'Brion—>Military Law and Courls Martial,) 'H'lo principlos to bo stated are, I am suroe, suck as wiil commond themuolves to the {Jmlg:rmnh nud resson of every membor of this ody., ‘The specifloation must always oharge tho ucoused with having ot such n time, aud a6 puoh & placo, dona gertain acls whial awmoupt, or which ure thought fo emount, to thy offousn atatod iu the ohargo. “'Ihio faoy or facts ought to bo very distinotly speclfied or allegod, in such munner that neither tho aconsed nor’ the court can have any diflienity in lmnwluiwbut is the prooie objgob of luvaau ation, Tivery fact in lhu ppecitiontion ahiould bo such as, it proved, woulld convigt tho acousod of the ohurgo, or af least might convict him of it." But doss any | momber ‘of this conrt belisve that ono-half of these speqlfications gan bo regarded as meoting thie nng’nuablo xcquiqrcmont ?E‘ # Any sllegation upon apy, examination of tho, -wherein tho dofend in the peoifioation jwhich, if proved, gonld not convio} tho acoused of any dogrea of the crime charged Is irrolovant, sud ahould be rojeated, Ita rotentlon will not vilinto tho chargo, but it is uurplnsngoi aund no ovidonco ulmul& ho rocelved thareon, It {s slwaya bottor to roject much mat~ tor ot fltst.” Again'it igenid to bo ** highly im- the prosecutor ropor that tha Inforoncon of g)m{"x]d appent in tho npnulacuthmn. o facts along sliould bo stated; it is for the Court to draw tho Inforonco. Buch_Inforoncos of tho prosocntor would, howaver, be more snrplusage, aud no ovidonce should he roccived on thom.” ¢ Thero abould bo no uncorlpinty or vaguonces in the specifiention," Thesa prinelples, embodied in rules, aro g0 ob- viously sound, and the constructlon, in strict conformity.with thom, of any indictmont whioh is.to bo trled In an eccloalastical court, inso cloarly importaat to protect tho Intorests of an acounod rumou, that I naed not aay & word in commonding them: to%ow. And yot the indiot- mout bofore this body, and ou which your brotber prosbyter hns boon arraignod, hao beon framed in 3 GONBPICUOUS VIOLATION of all theso principles. Tho members of this Court have been onveloped in n great cloud of wonlx:j—-wurds which state noxt to nothlng a8 regards notual faots, and which insinuate noxt to ovorything in the sbape of tho prosa- cutor's ~ inforences,—nand through such o hazy and distorted medium ms thin thoy are amsked to look at thelr accuscd brother, and seo if o do not appesr an unfafth- ful miniator and o horatieal toncher. Wo have involution and convelution illustratod before us hiero to such bowildering extent that this body might woll bo adjudged lucapablp of dotormin~ 10g tha degroe of gullt which should ho attached to nim who holds to the dootrino of * ovolution,” or roligious progress antd growth. Nor doos it holp tho mattor, nor at all sorva to litt us out of this haze of indafinitonsss, whioh, Jike a London fog, onvelops us all, that the prosccutor comes gnd protests in onen court, 83 hip did.at tha out- ‘Botof this trial, that bo canuot make thoso charges and speoifications nuy more.dofinite; for-this is tuntamount to n confession on bis part thet he has no cnse, [Applause.] If'a man wore guilty of murdor, it would, I supposo, be possible to sy 80 distinatly, If Lo weo gullty of falsohood, tho English languago is rich onongh 1n rosources 1o ennolo ono to chargd that also with definito- nogs, procision, and oven omphnsis, And if this respondont at your bar, has boon guilty of any woll-dofined and unquostionablo “ecclosinatical offenso, it ought not to bo (mpossiblo to say what offonso, und tho statemont should be one of fact and not of inforenco. DBat that tho charges in this indictment do nobt givo us any Jight upon this polut, 1 have alrendy shown, That the spoci- fleations teave us equally in tho dark ia that which is now and casily to bo shown. Beginniug with the first of tho spacifications, and assuming the charge to bo iu proper for: tho object of the sjm::mcnuanu is to point ou! ant Los falled in zonl, and faithfulness, and. diligenco as a minister, The patticular instauces n which the lask of those qualities hns beon manifosted should bo ex- hibiteddu the specifleations, Wo look to seo uxwm stated thero, and find nothing of the n FPEOIFICATION FIRST Js no specification at all. Whe substanco of it s, that oimywul language bos beon usad in sormony printed in tho Chicago Pulpit, the Alltan aud tho volume ontitlod * Truths for To-day.” In theso nermons the roferences to cardinal doo- trines are doclared to be vague, and it is canrgod tbint they have not been unequivocally allirmed. Now the object of a speciflcation is to toll & man of what particular deroliotion he is agoused, that ho may deny his guwlt in regard to that partion- for. This specification permits the proscoutor to seck his ovidonoo in any of tho volumes of sarmons alluded to, while it gives the accused 10 notico as to the particular uttorance or mode .of spaech which. is objected to. BPEOIFICATION BECOXD is that the offect of Prof, Swiug's offenso han boou to nwalieu doubtsin theminds of sowe of his brothron, sud to cause Unitarisus to olaim him. It iy further aeserted thot Mr, Bwing, kuowing that ho wna suspected of ddctrinal unsound- ness, s not deolared his position by preaching sormons eapctinlly for that purpose, nor iu any othor ‘way. ‘I'mé specification is remarkable only for what Hamiel would call a ** plontitul Ingk” of defimteness, Men pre indicted for crimo, but who ever heard of n mau boing in- dicted for the etfocts of & crimo? But hore the accused is oharged with tho consoquences of his protonded ofRcuses, and that, kuowiug these cousoquonees, ho did not reform. b Now, it tho accused has boon fi;nlty of an ccolesipstical offense, ho shiould be charged specifloally with that, and tried upon it, aud not, ns is bero most wnjustly done, bs ar- raignod for the cousoquonces of a pretended offense, and for not refurmiug, though knowing those consoquonves. BPEOIFIOATION THIRD, in ita first aveimont, declares that the acoused has given the weight of his influonce in favor of Unitarianism, Now, an influence grows out of acts, oud to chargo & man with using an in- fluonce, is charging him with a conolusion, In- stoad of that, Lo should be charged with cerlain specific ncts, aud hosnould be punished for these nets, if o is guilty of them, and if they conati- tute o disciplinable offense, but not otherwise. Ho i noxt said to bo guiltv of un- worthy and extravagunt laudation of John Stuasrt Dlill. "But this is a conclusion which the proso- cotor arrives at in Lis own mind. If the sc- onsod lins extravagantly lauded r. Mill, bo did it by tho uso of certain words, which ought to have been quoted iu the gpecification, and on thewo hio ouph to be tried. Buv iustend of this tho proscoutor bas diawn his own conclusion from tho words which ho does not quote, and then sueks to prosconto the dofendant on tho conclusion whioh he drawa, > In this, therefore, tho specification is defaotlvs in form. " 1t sets forth tho conclusion whiol the prosecutor draws from tho language of tho de- Tendant, but not tho language 1welf. It is for the Court to draw the conclusions, Buf may not a man spenk words of praiso of an atheist ?” Not of his atheism, for with dohxg this, Prof. Patton docs not o 8o far as to charge Prof. Swing. *The unworthy and extravagaut Inudations® of Mr. Mill had respoct, as even tho proscoutor himsolf coufesses, oufy tohis giont abilities, ao- koowledged by all, and to his_fruitful lagots in the flelds of "philosophy, of literature, and of political, moral and soc.al _reform. In all these dopartments of human offort, it cannot bo de- nied that Mr, Dill wus an garnost aud consolen- tious worker, And having been such, is it s sin to spoak woll of lum o far as these labors aro concorned? To say that Mr. Mill Isbored with olt bis might to tear down and destroy the Olnistiun religion, is simply to say what is noto- riously untrue, Mo did nothing of tne kind, It was till his_uutobiograpliy appenred, almost at the close of his lite that mon kuew what hig opinions were on the subjectof roligion. Ho had, toall, excopt to Lis Intimato friends, if nok oven to those, kept bis opinions concealed. Ho was not known a8 an atheist, nor oven asanenomy of Roligion, except in tho sonso that ho was not Lknown a8 its friend. But oven 1f ho hud beon anopeu and vindielive enemy of Olristignity slouid we thorefore rofuso to recogmize Wi gront gifta, Prof. Bwing may have foumed too fuvorablo'an opinion of the man, and of his genoral work. His view ig one witli which the prosecntor ovidently does not coincide, and with which moembors of thig Court, very possibly, may not coincide, But what then ? t nol bettor to orr on tho sido ot obarity than on the sido of ‘saverity? Prof. Swing did not fail to sue, nor did ho fail fo pomt out very emphatic. ally the dofeot in Mr, Mill's character, Upon b life, 80 abounding and o magniticent I its Iabors in belrlf of “philosophy aud roform, Lie wroto the word * vamty," ay his_final verdict, in broad and legiblo charaoters, and even though ou suppose that bis judgment of him a8 a phi- osopher, ag & o'itioal economist, and as & ro- foiwor be o too favorabla oue, ate you going to regard thig as an ccolesinstionl misdomeanor whioh requires n formal consuro? I biavonot so poor an ofnuinn of this Court as to beliova that whoy will-for one imomeny ontortain such a thought. No, sir. I'rof, Patton in'wrong. He is wrony in Lhinking that tho roligion of Ohrist is to be commeuded and ndvauced by treating ovory unbelleverin itas o beathen mon and apub- lioan, el wrong in himsel? iusisting upon the principle of rofusing to commond what {8 com- moudible i another, simply bectuso he " is not all ihat we know ho should be. Notso did the Bavior, for ho commended ono, almost warm- ly, for tho "good ~qualitios that he possoesod; but ho did not omit to bny, *Ono thing thou Inokost.” Lucldug that ho lacked all things. Tt ianot in any imi- ortant rospeot difforent from this, that Prof. wing hos spokion of John Biunart Mill, He has not, therofore, dono In this matier whut amounts even to an indiscrotion, losst of all to an offonsi and honco all tho prosceutor’y ingenious an sldlltul ploading does not desorve, ne I am por- suadod it will not recoive, at your hands, any se- rlous consldoration, 3 TATTENSON AND COLLYER. Prof. Bwing ia uoxt churgod with Laving aald, in substanco, in tho Lakesids Monthiy, -tha Tobert Yatrorson and Robori Collyer proached tho soma doojrines, This alko i n copnlusion of Prof, Patton, avd one which dgps manitost violenco to the langungo which the dm?umw emploved, Mo snid that tho two mynisters preachod practically ; and to infor from this that lhoy]‘muu»d«flxa enmo Gospel, apd thst the Gospyl Is mptablo, js ,npp&n: 8§ roasgoablo (o ase sump that Livo mon mie ‘doclared to praach the anno Gongel-hoonuso they both proaoh earaoatly, or both E“Mh from manuseript, or aro bolh elaquont mon, LOOAL, GORFEL: In ke mannor, tho. propecutor’s comments upon _tho words ‘-lmlP Gospol " gromsly per- vorted Prof. Bwing's monning, as 1 _ho had sald that tho Gospel wng one thing In Pittaburgh, oaud another in 8. Louls, and_still anothor in Chicago, I aubmiv that' no falr-minded man, reading ancther for the sole purpoeo of gotting at bis meaning, would over bo in danger of mir- talting the meaning of theso words, He would underatand them aw referring to the differont modes of prosonting tho Gospel, and_ not as sig- nifying & difforont’ Gospol for oach. In_this nonnaglm Jocal Gospol whoro I pronoh, and the lacy) Gospol whore Prof. Patton proaches, are yery difforent’ from esch qthor; and I supposo thoy alnaya will bo, unleas—whioh s oxcaedingly unlikely—tho prosecntor ecomes to adopt aub- stantially my mothods of mtating and flluutmnn?‘ trath, [Applauso.] Mr. -Moder- ator, it hard ‘to bo pationb with o critic 80 unrensonnbly onptious, so grosaly unfalr, 50 abmardly swhlmsionl, us the Tramor of s in: distmont f0s shown imsolf to bo, I eay un- hualuflnfily and rovorontly, that 1f ho wore to subjoct tho lnngunge of Obrist to the samo tor- tura shat ho nmauou to the lnuguago of Prof. Bwing, he would huvo no difffoulty at all in mak- ing Him out s teacher of false doctrines. [A planse.] Thore 15, thon, notlung in this speeit catlon that is doflpito, oxcopt ene act, aud ono #aying, Tho ot ig that Prol, Bwing gava n LECTUBE IN AID OF A UNITARIAN OBAPEL, and the saying 18 thut he considered religion a modo of virtue. But noither tho act nor tho say- lnfxnmoumu to an olfenso. y no falr construotion can this actof lacturing in nld of tho ohispol, orcotod 1n memory of Mary Prioa Collier, bp taken out of the dommn of Christisn onsuistrynud ’frivnlocunsoloucn. Thero ia whoro it bolongs, and there is whore tho ad- &udlcnflon-mum Vo hold, and not in this Court. -You may say, Bix. Moderator, that yon would not porform such s sorvice, and 1t wonld -bo your right to docline any suoh invitatlon, if you wore to rocoivo one. ut you havo no right to im- pouch tho motives, still lous to domand the for- mal consme, of a brother who, in the oxoroise of his own judgmont, and in ‘conformity with tho decisions of his own consclonce, rondors this sorvice when askad to do so, .So greatand good » mou, and 80 sonnd a thoologian as tho vonor- able Dr, Hodgo, ‘finvo his couutenance and sup- port publicly to the Roman Catholic Cuurch, on o momorable ogeasion whioch wa il remombor, Yot it has boon tho fashion with Protostants (and I presumo tho prosecutor has followed tho fashion) to -denounce this Oharch as *“the motherof harlots"—that groat Bablyon whose oxomplary and terrible overtirow s ot forth in tho visions of the Apocalypre. Liberty of pri- vato judgmont must'be allowed hero. Bocause you think that temperanco menns total absti- nenco, you must not arraiga the man who can- not soo exactly with your cyes, DBeeauso yon count it an offonse againet good morals and “Di- vino law torido In tho stroet-cars on Sunday, you -bave mo right to :indict bafore the Church » man who may happen. to think and gt difforently. Bovsuse you bolleve it to boa Bin pgeinst God ond man to use tobacco, you must not therofora undertake to sot upyour own private opinion os tho rule of faith “aud bractice for othora, Besides,,if it is o disoiplin- able offonso for a I’ruubLtnrinn ministor to help ‘Uniterianism by lecturing,—and 1t is simply o boggiug of tho question tosay that it doos,—is it not equally a disoiplinablo oifonse for n Pros- bytorinn Elderto keop on eale Unitarinn and evon infidol booluw? 0 looturer did his worx withont pay,-but tha boolseller carries on his trado for the purguuu of honorable and private goin. No, sir. Yon cannot adjudicate on o quostion of this kind. Itisa gross invasion of & private right to undortake to do 0. So much for the act which this apeciflcation sots forth g8 an offenso, A MODE OF VIRTUE. How {8 it with tho saylog ? Prof. Bwing ia ar- raigned for sayiug that the Gospol is a mode of virtne. Woll, is not that & good definition of tho Gospol on its praction] side 1t cottainly 15 uot & modo of vice. -'bhe language doos not ro- for to the Gospel in the abstract, or as o systom of doctrines received Ly tho understanding, but 1t sota forth that Gospol by its fruits, -%b de- olares that the offect of the Gospol {8 to make mon virtuous, to lead thom to holiness, and to preparo thom for a bettor lifo horaatier. When, therofore, tho prosecutor criticisos and carps ot thig languago, a8 if thoro were no natural, mor oven possiblo oxplanation of it which would make it nccord with ovangolical teaching, the rmuumptiunm at loast o foir ono, that ho be- ioves in & ealvabion that ia divorced from morals. Haviag spoken an hour, Mr. Noyes raid ho was too much oxhausted to go on, and the Pros- bytery thersfore adjourned until 2 o'clook this aftornoon. 7 THE COURTS. Miscellaneous Dusiness Transacted Westordny. Inthe divorca coso of Harrlet Wisner, com- monced a short timo ago, threo Judges wero om- ployod yeatorday aftorncop {n deciding whother the complainaut should havo any alimony, and, it 8o, how much. Judgo Farwoll presided. Es-Judge Vap Buron appeared for Mrs, Wisner, and ox-Judge Enowltoy for the defondant. Alr. Wisnor flloa.an afidavit steting that in tho fore part of 1870 ho was obliged to lenve his wifo on acconnt of her bickerings and il tempor, snd had ever ginco lived apart from bor. Boon after ho decided to loava the greater past of his property for hor maintonnnco and that of her childron. She had algo property of ber own, including the houso in which she lived, tho latter worth about $10,000. Joln N. Wisnor, who was also made a defeudant to restrain him from disposing of certain prop- erty belouging to Ilum'i.l filed an answer allog- 1ng that the property which Henry sold him way trenaterrod by bona flde couvoyance, in which the wife joined, and that the injunction which waa granted was soriously inconvenieuciug bun, und proventing him from making = sale of any of thia land. After o long argument, Judgo Farwell granted temporary alimony, including aolicitor’s 1ces, as follows: $160 to bo paid wizfiin twonty days, and $100 June 1, and evary moath. theroaftor. The injunction agaiust Jobn N. Wisuer was modified 80 a8 to oply restrain him from conveying any [)ropqrty or valuable thing of Honry Wisuer, and o restrain him from canvn{mg anythiug to a third party to be hold ip trust for Hanry Wianor. g.:fio ‘;nutiun for tho wnit of no excab was ovor- led. A 85,000 rxwaNT, Jndge Rogers is engazod in trying the caso of David Caswell against William R, Bunting. Tho plamntilt claims that tho defondant had u Jarge halo or yault in his yard, which ho nemligently loft unopencd, and that his (plaintifi’s) ohild foll therein and was &illed. For this loss ho brings sult, and claime 85,000, A'large number of witnesses were introduoed, tho defondant oundeavorivg to show that tho Hmmm'« cows had troddan or torn down the ivision fence, and that his nogligenco coucur- ring to produco the ocoident, hocould not ya- cover. #£10,000 rinxc sorr, A fow duya,aga. & bill was filed by L, J, Hitz and D, F. Eisenhart againat Willism Hopkinson and Thomas Bartee, to remove oloud on the title to a certain pleco of laud. In tho course of the bill, it was stated that tho trust deed which created tho cloud was mada by Villiam A, Travis, an sgont of E, A, Lravis, but that W. A. ‘Gravis had ho written sutlority to aot a8 #ich, and that the echeme was a -couspiraoy be- twean tho two Travis', W. A, Uravis, not waiting to aco if the bill was dismigsed or not, began & suit for libal yostor- day, stating the sbove allegations of the bill, = to show bnuso May 20, and provislonal wareant, were lssucd. Cooper, Jonos & Cadbury flled a potltion agalngt {vilmer 8. Bhopliord, on a promissory note for 846410, duo Oct. 11, 1875, Suaponsion of payméat, and tho giving of o Judgmont noto, or warrant bo confoss’ jud mont, 210 the acts of bankruptey charged. A rula to show causo Moy 23 was mado. BUPERIOR, COURT. TN-BRIEF George and Hiram Wilaon began a suit againat . A, Ellaworth, to recover '£8,000 woria of prlnting prosses, and type, eto., at 166 Clark stroet. Tho Contrnl National Banl bogan asult against Honry B. Plokot for 10,000, Bamuel L. Balloy bronght sult for 60,000 aganst D, H. Lincoln and Ell A, Boach ;. and Ji quopntE. Dalloy auad tho szmo parkies for a like amount. 8 ‘L'heJlinols Rtone Qompany sued E. F. Dore for §2,000, and Samuol J. Walker for §10, CIRCUIT COURT. James Matthows bauan-an astjon against tha Wnlllnmub\u ‘Eh City Innuraoco Company, the Mechanics' & Tradors’ Iusurance Company, nnd tho Browers' &. Asltaters’ Insurauco Company, olaiming §16,800. UNTY. 0OUD! TUE. CO T, In tho mator of the ostate of Barah E. Bar- keonblle, grant of admimstration was mado to g}mi‘lirm T, Boynion, under sn approved hond of ‘Tho will of tho late Jamen Hart-was proven by do{mmlon, :and , Jetlors togtamentary :woro lenued o Teronce Hart. .Executor's bood of 96,000 was approved. The renunolstion of ?l‘{hcllhm Burns, oxecutor named in tho will, wag od, Arthur Burman was appointed guardlan of Milos . Burman, . & minor, under an; approved vond of 810,500, n’.l‘hné:lln;viug lmm}; wore ;fl]nd?ud ineanos ary Beeeher, agno, iclolas Junzer, andrybmllol 0'firion. i 5 In tho mattorof tho ostato of John O, Oran- dall, [anuutor'a first sonunl accouut wes ap- proved. 0. TIE OALL, Jupaz DrmntoNp—49, and from 66 unlimited. Junae - Rouena x apponls 857,880, 840 ta 842, 802 to 805, 422 to 426, and tho call flbfl. 869 801, 860, and 367. Junax Booru—170 to 190. Junce 'neE—2,707, 1,406, 917, 101, eto. ugm;%: Gany—107 o 130, oxaept 1b8. 113, U8, , 118, JUDOE 'JAMERON—204, 200, 207 to 221, 223 to JUDOMENTS, ' UNITED BraTES COinourr COURT—JUDGE DRUM- Mo¥D,~United Bintes of Amorica v, Electrio Mutch Company, $5,000; Samo v, Bume, $5,375.01, UNITED STATES DisTnIOr COUNT—I UDGE BLODOETT, ~0. W, Upton, Assiguee, v. A, M. Dawloy, $1,037.42, Suremon Count—OoNPEIsIoNs,—Willlom Danlsls ¥. Willlam Potors, $317,60.—Edgar Loomis of al, v, Swansea Smeitiug and Retining Company, Adam Bmith, Samuel Smith, and Willism T, Windlais, $5,050, ~Tlliuofs Blono Company . H, H, Honore, $,820,43, Jupos Ganv.—Wiliam Korr'v, T, H, Honors, $336, —I. B, Burclay ot al.v. J. E, Yoing, $181.48.—~Alexe ander Beal v, Lowis Joit, $316,02.—Town of Oicero v, 8, 3. Walker, §178,60.—Janica Deviuo v, B. M. Honghy JuDoR Jaxzson,—Nebraskn ity Nattonal Dank v, Jobn Mu!nlg: ‘Fraok Price, and Joln Rogers, ;El!{!’g)?lb'lfl.—-fl iriea D, . Lronson et al, v. W. B. Wood, Cinourr Count—Jjupo: Toorx—~L. B, Ireland v, Inaa W, Hendorson, $£22.34,—Joseph Bechans v, U, I, Bhinner, $J05,0T, ] PHILADELPHIA. IRoport of Mayox Stokloy-Tho Olty Flnancces. Spectal Dispateh to ‘The Chicago Tribune, PmrapELon, Moy 14.—Mayor Stokley pre- sented lus annunl meseage to tho Gounoils toe day. M givos the total liabilities of tho city as £:3,804,171.68. Balanco in tho City Tronsury Jau. 1, 1874, $2,176,809.08, The valuation of real estato, furnituro, horses, onttle, and plens. ure carriages on which taxes are laid foots up £5648,243,635, an increaso of £21,078,267 over tho previous year, to which must bo added $875,095,~ 697 mouey, st interost at subject to taxntion. "The poligo force, numboring 1,002, is admitted to bo insufiiciont to afford proner securlty talifo, ote., owing to tho immonse amount of territory to be covered, viz: 120 square miles, and par- tionlar roforonce is mads to.tho avasion of the oydinanco prohibiting the erection of wooden Dbuildings withint he built-up portions of tho olty. BILK MANUFACTURERS, Mecting of tho :Sillc Association Amorici. : Nrw Yonw, May 14.—Tho Silk Association of Ameries hold it second znnual meeting yester- day, st which tho Becretary’s report was road and tho officors of tho procediug yenr wore ap« pointed. Tho roport gave a reviaw of the opera~ tions of the {irat year, and esid that * while many trados sre languishing, and somo in ruine ous disoxder, it is apparent that the silk trode i well in hand, controlled by conservative coun- sols, watchful for flrst awakenings which only legitimate wants shiould arouse, and fully con- tent to bido a time which shall give to patienca and wise gelf-rolianco their swe reward. The replios to tbe requests of the Assaciation for statistics aro confirmatory ovidence to the gratitying faot that the operativos in the silke mills throughout the country have thus far been very gencrally maiulained in thoir regular viei- tations, the percentage of a reduction from the usual houra of labor belug, in all tho mills, only 12 por cont in the past year. .In New York, tho ailk operatives have boon employed 72 por cont of the usual hours of labor; iu Now Joraoy, 803§ por cent ; in Ponnsvlvauia, 88 per cons ; in Mas- achusetts, 0637 per cont; and In Connocticut, 9414 por cent.* Tho rovort roviews the statistics of the ribbon manufacture, the trado in ladies® dress trimmings, fringes, gimps, braids, oto,, upholstary trimmings, sowing-sitk and machine- twist. Of diessills, tha roport tecords a mark- ad deoroase in the production, owing to the Sop- tember papic. In conclusion, the report eaya: *All considerations lead to tho conviction that the natural facliitios for tho Amorican man- ufacture of silk goods are becoming more widely known sbroad, and better undeietood at home. The Amcrican sitk.induatry is a power in tho Iand, and must be iespected. The mills do an anoual business of nearly £19,000,000.” In the ovening the Association gave its scocond anvual dinner, at which addvesses wore mado by wolle kaown members and othors, TEMPERANCE, Movements at Mincoka and NMore xiNy Rile Correapondence of Phe Chicano Yvibune, Monius, 1., Mlay 13.—Tho Villeg of dlinonka votud **No License;” nudc:astcrd.\v twelve suits. wero commenced, in the County Court, by A, R. Jqrdan, Prosecuting Attorney, sgaiost dealers u&llug without license. ‘Uhe Hou, P, A, Ayme stroug dofouds them, Last uveuqu, & potition of over 400 indies was presonted to the Common Clouncll of Marris, re- questing thom not to grant ony moro liconses, or allow any transfers of the same. Tho potition way presented by Mra. 8. H, Dawey, in & very eioquont aud forcible addross, The Council re- coived the Eummn, and reforred it to the Com- mitteo on Lacenses. Thn{nlmmudintuly showed their regard for it by rofusing toallow & transfor of ticensio to an applicant, aud slsn in refusing to rotund the monoy for the unexpired term of anothor doaler loaving tho business. Tlhe Hou, A. Xi. Jordan, the prosent Statc’s Attorney, who has been very aolive in proseoute iug liquor-dealors, was elacted by the Counoll ag City Attorney over tho 1low, T A, Armstrong, Liy compotitor, and tho Herald and Advertises dosignated es the papor for city printing ovex the Heformer, Evorything now indicates that the lawsln favor of tomporance will bo rigidly enforced. and clniming that they wero maltclously mnde to defume him. His damangos ho puts ab$10,- 0f 00, BILL TO OLEAR TITLE. Chnrles B, Simmons fllod o bill against the Internatlonal Bank, Samuol J. Walker, John G. Rogors, and Fraudia A, Itiddle, to romove a oloud on the title to Lots 7 and 8, in the sub- dlvision of the E. 3¢ of Block 7 of Assessor's Di- Vision of the I, 3§ of tho B. K. X of Seo, 18, o BANEDTITOL TTES, - i Warron & Bidwoll filed apotition agatnst John 8. Date and .C. A, Btono, partnors, under tho firm ngmo of Date- & Btove. 'I'ho claimof po- titionars” smounts’ to £828,05, ovidouced by n promlssory note. A rulo to show causo May 28 was lasuéd, In tho matter of tho Jotlet Iron & Steel Com- any, tho indofatigablo potitioner, Thomns 1"(”\ filed another potition, stating that the ‘Chird Nationnl Bank was g orodftor of tho Com- pany to the amount of §03,000, secured by prop- orty valued at 75,000 ; that the debt {a due, and tho banlk will probubly soll tho seouritica unloss rosteained, Ono James Bruce, of Jolict, i a aredltor for about §7.000, scoured by real estato worth 816,000, An injunction in aleo askod against bim, sud the roquost was granted inboth RO, “Nowlnn 8. Otls flled & voluntary potition, and tho caso was reforred (o tho Registor, 0. M, Hondorsan & Co,, filed o potition against Obrlstian D, Dauphin, of Samana, Carroll Uo,, boamng their olaim on an sccount for 335,80, Thoy olaim glso thpt the debtor trannforred his whole stopk of gooils of bopte and phags to one Fredorick Shull, wits iutont to dofraud, A rulo —_— EDITORIAL EXCURSIONISTS, “CrnornwaTy, May 14.—Tho New York Stats Fditorial Excursionists wore to-day met by the Prosidonts of tho Bonrd of Trede and Chamber of Commorco, aud invited upon 'Uhange, 'hey wero mot ou "Chango by the Lditorial Assosic~ tlon from Indisus, and specches of wolcome woro mado and responses givon. To-night both augoeations will buvo o recoption at the residonce of Richard Smuth, the oditor of tho Gazetle. The Now York delogution will leave to-morrow for Loulsvillo. —————— Aunnoyances at tho Whito Rouse, Ouo of our merchnuts was at the White Houeo the other dsy, and stated a littlo incident that showa ono of the many annoyancoes to which tho Executive s subjeot. Troops of persuns cull ou tho Propdent daily to geg or horrow monoy, Among this number was a well-dresaod womai, Bho eatno nto the ante-room and nsked to 8eo the Presidont. Bho bore a lettor tiom o well-known oftiolal, whoso naine was on the uppor left-band corner of the onvelopo, Pro« suming 'that slio had important Lueinoss, tho rauvited bor to be seated., * When ean [ gea tho Presidont?” He's with the Cabinot, nnd will be engaged for an hour," Wall, asl bavye a carrisge, and Lave to pay by the hour, I may as woll rido, I will rouurn soon,” Prompt an ume, the lady roturned, Blie was introduced to the Bresident, Hor business was to obtain mouoy to Yny hor hotol billl The ofielal who E:::fi»lg)\'txellol:ar in indignant that his lottora rosident are not, moro prompuly atten to—" Turleigh " tn e oaton dormuss - on4ed