Evening Star Newspaper, May 13, 1893, Page 7

READY FOR THE HOST. Wow Washington Presbyterians Will Entertain the Assembly. THE COMMITTEE WORK DONE. How the Arrangements Have Been Made N ANY OTHER CITY almost except in Wash- ington, where the citi- would be apt to cause the greatest amount of bustle and excitement. Even then the arrange- ments would be found to be incomplete and defective, and the strang- ers would be largely thrown on their own re- sources. Here a program elaborafe in detail and complete in every particular was devised Weeks ago, various committees appointed and the plans carefully and intelligently carried out, So that today, four days before the assembly meets, everythingis ready for their reception and entertainment, the bulk of the 600 comminsi provided with quarters, and, in fact, everything has been done that could be done, and all that the dele- gates will have to do when they get here is Simply to attend the sessions of the assembly and to enjoy the city and the hospitality which Will be so heartily extended to them. It is no slight task to develop plans of such magnitude ‘and to care for 600 men, provide for their needs for food and shelter and at the same time en- able them to taste some of the enjoyments of life. Of course it is not easy, but it seems to have been easily done, and that after all is the true secret of hospitality, and one reason that | People like to come here. Such a result, as everybody knows, comes from hard work carried on with ‘intelligence and with the benefit of the experience which is now the | Property of our public-spirited citizens, who kiveso freely of their time and money on oc- ¢asions of this character. REV. DR. BARTLETT. As is well known, the pastor of the New York Avenue Church, Rev. Wm. Alvin Bartiett, D.D., who had invited the assembly to meet in this city and in his church, was appointed by the assembly, in connection with the stated clerk and the members of the session of the church, & member of the committee to arrange for the next meeting of that body. Dr. Bartlett has enough energy to be the pastor of a great big active church and a good deal left to devote to any good work that comes to him. He made up his mind when it was decided to hold the meeting here that it would be, as far as the local arrangements were concerned, a great success. He threw himself into the work of | preperation with characteristic energy, and it not too much to say that he has been the animating spirit of the entire movement. Sev- eral months ago he began to map out a plan of campaign. consulted with his board of elders and with the other officers of the chureh, and when he had determined upon the divisions of the small army he to organize he began to pick his men.” He had hisown church to choose from, as well as all the Presbyterian churches of the citr, and the list embraced & large number of those who are active in the so- cial and business life of the city. As the event has proved. he had good material at his com- in himself, and there is no amount of work or difficulty that can impair his good nature. Perhaps the most important committee is the finance committee. A good deal of is needed to properly entertain a great body like the assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and care was exercised in the selection of the committee to which would be intrusted the duty of raising the money. At the head was placed Mr. John W. Thompson, whose ex- perience. in large affairs of this character has been varied and whose excellent business abil- ity has placed him among the leaders in finan- cial affairs in this city. EX-GOV. H. H. WELLS. Mr. Thompson has found in ex-Gov. H. H. Wells, a member of the committee, a valuable aid, and owing to the interest displayed by Gov. Wells the chairman has been largely re- lieved of the burden of the work. At the outset the committee found that it would be necessary to raise $10,000,a large sum, as every one knows, but none too large for the needs or for the liberality of the constituency that are the hosts of the assembly on this occasion. The general assembly 1s composed of 600 commis- sioners, both clerical and lay, representing the resbyteries scattered throughout the country. e local committee is expected to entertain, free of cost. one-third of the delegates, or 200, ‘The assembly contributes toward the expenses of the remaining two-thirds $1.50 per day. | Then there are the expenses of clerical hire for | the committee on arrangements, correspond- | ence. printing, entertainment, &c. Gov. Wells | tarteol’ the” ball rolling’ by secart [some eight or ten subscriptions of |$500 each. Then a number of mailer individual subscriptions were received \d each of the Presbyterian churches in the ity gave liberal subscriptions, besides the indi- idual members offered to entertain commis- | sioners at their homes. The work of the finance | committee was a great success. The members are John W. Thompson, chairman; John W. Foster, Senator James McMillan, Gardiner G. Hubbard, Senator Calvin 8. Brice, Col. George E. Lemon, Col. John Hay, Col. Alexander T. Britton, B. H. Warner, William B. Gurley, James L. Norris, William Ballantyne, Charles E. Foster, James E. Fitch, William Thompson, H.H. Wells, Capt. R. W. Tyler, Frederick Pilling. JUSTICE WILLIAM STRONG. The committee of receptioa is composed of representative men, and at its head as the ebairman is Mr. Justice William Strong, re- tired, of the United States Supreme Conrt. The delegates will receive from this committee the courtesies which hospitable Presbyterians know so weil how to extend. The committee is constituted as follows: Justice Wm. Strong, chairman; Adlai E. Stevenson, Walter Q. Gres- ham, Hoke Smith, Stephen B. Elkins, D. 8. La- mont, John Wanamaker, Justice John M. Harlan, Justice H. B. Brown, Justice Howell E. Jackson, Justice Geo. Shiras, Senator A. P. Gorman, Senator Wm. P. Frye, Senator John B. Gordon, Senator Chas. J. Faulkner, Wm. A. Stone, John W. Ross, Justice Arthur McArthur, Edwin Willits, Judge Lawrence Welden. Ji Stanton J. Pelle, Judge Chas. C. Nott, Wm. T. Harris, Clifton 'R. Breckinridge, John W. Douglass, 8. ‘Admiral E. R. Colhoun, Judge G._ Kimball, Judge T. F.’ Miller, Judge 8. F. Philli Joseph C. Willard, W. C. Whittemore, J. H. MeKenney, Mt. W. Galt, ‘Judge J.P.” Jones, Rev. G. Alden, Gen. John Eaton, Charles L. Gurley, J. 8. Swormstedt, William T. 8. Curtis, Col. A.’A” Hosmer, J. A. Deeble, Frank H. Smith, Dr. Charles Richardson, J. H. Merri- weather, Abraham Depue, Dr. George W. N. mand and he selected wisely. MR. JOHN B. WIGHT. ‘The committee of arrangements, considered asa whole, had as the chairman very appropri- ately Dr. Bartlett. The secretary is Mr. John B. Wight, the well-known real estate broker. ‘Mr. Wight is conuected with the First Presby- terian Chureh. where his father. Mr. 0. C. | Wight, was installed as elder more than forty | earsagoand isstill in active service. The | adquarters of the committee were located in | Mr. — 1410 G street, about a month | ago. re the great mass of the correspond- ence bas been carried on and many of the meetings for consultation have been held. Mr. Wight is not only an energetic business man, but he throwsalot of go and push into bis ebureh work, and the committee has had the | benefit of his valuable help. MR. JOHN W. THOMPSON. The choice of treasurer fell upon Mr. Joan 'W. Thompson, the president of the Metropol- itan Bark, and one of the leading citizens of Washington. Dr. Bartlett associated with him members of theexeentive committee men who may be termed his lieutenants in the great work of preparation. Of course, Dr. Bartlett is the chairman cf the committee.and the other members of the committee are as follows: J. R Van Mater, secretary: Gov. H. H. Wells. Sardis L. Crissev, Chas. B. Bailey, Wm. B. Guriey, John D. McChesney. Curtis, E C. Fawcett, James B. Lambie, H. W. Lee, Ralph Baldwin, David Walker, David Fisher, Benjamin R. Mayfield, Frank C. Mc- Comas, Prof. E. S. Burgess. THE EVENING STAR: WASHINGTON, D. C., SATURDAY. MAY 13. 1898—-SIXTEEN PAGES. E. M. Gallaudet, Rev. Francis J. Grimke. Jobn Randolph, Dr. J. B. Custis, jr.. J. R. Dodge, Charlee Lyman, ©. B, Pierson, 0. Knight, Reg- inald Fendall,'W. H. H. Smith, Charles E. Mott, Dr. William D. Hughes, Roswell A. Fish, F. L. Moore, Col. Amos Webster, Gen. Joseph C. Breckinridge, 0. B. Brown, k. RB. Upton, William H. West, William R. Speare, Campbell Carrington, Peyton Boyle, Gen. F. D. Sewall, Daniel MeFarlan, Rev. J. G. Craighead, D.D., Rev. M. N. Cornelius, D. D., William K. Men- denhall, F. B. Dalrymple,’ A. W. Pentland, James Woodworth, William H. Dougal, Henry A. Seymour, J.C. Baxter, John A. Gaskin: James A. McElwee, Clarence McClelland, | les H. Merwin, Albert Carhart, L. 8. Emery, W. B. Robison, Walter C. Clephane, William Montgomery, George H. Brown, Frank Libbey. REY. CHARLES B. RAMSDELL. In the division of work no point was omitted, and so, of course, a committee on in- formation was appointed. Rev. Charles B. Ramsdell, who is the pastor of the North Presbyterian Church, is the chairman of this committee, and it is the intention to keep the delegates well supplied with all the information that 1s essential for their happiness and the en- joyment of their stay in this city. The mem- bers of the committee are as follows: Rev. Charles Alvin Smith, 0. C. Wright, W. J. Rheer, Samuel Ker, R. J. Fleming,’ D.| E. Salm-n, T. P. Keene, B. F. Brockett, C. L. Du ios, R. W. Taylor, H. J. Barrett, C. Lloyd, A. B. Claxton, E. C. Brandenburg, J John D. Hyer, James M. Rese, Sethi Nichols, W. B. Morgan, L. 8. Depue, Joseph Ker, ©. 8. Smith, W. I. Simps: E. Matthews, C. J La Porte, EM. Finch, A. Lockhardt, A. @. Yount, E. Q. Smith, Joseph T. Miller, Charles Young, W. 8. Armstrong, William F. Hubbard, Lewis P. Clephane and William McClellan, REY. T. 8. WYNKOOP. In addition to the business sessions of the assembly g number of public meetings will be held. It will be necessary to have some pro- vision for the musical part of the service, and 4 committee has that matter specially in charge. Atthe head of the committee is Rev. T. 3. Wynkoop, the pastor of the Western Presby- terian Church. The chairman is a musician of ability, a fine performer on the piano and the organ and well versed especially in church music. He has the competent assistance of the following well-known men: Rev. Arthur M. Little, H. M. Paul, Charles 8. Clark, C. H. Carrington, Charles 8. Bradley, Henry’ Wells, J. P. Canfield, H. C. Metealf, C. J. Toof, Geo. A. Prevost, Arthur W. Rose,’ Wm. M. Terrell, M. V. Bailey. H. K. Simpson, C. B. Jewell, R. G. Sutton, E. H. Taylor, W. F. Dosle, J. B. Hunter, LB. Linton, Dr. G. F. Johnston and Warren S. Young. CSDERLAND. There area good many pleasant little plans REV. W. 8. MILLER, Arrangements are to be made for the various meetings that are to be held during the sessions of the astembly. In order to accommodate ail the different assemblies that will be held many of the churches in the city will be used. There is to be a method followed in order to avaid confusion, and a committee known as the com- mittee cn meetings ard assemblies has been appointed, of which Rey. W. S. Mailer, the pastor of Gurley Memorial Church, is the chair- man, The members of the committes ure as follows: Rev. Scott F. Hershey, Ph. D.: Samuel R. Church, A. G. Burritt, HOS. Knight, F. 8, Doyle, A. M. MeBath, Dr. H. H. D Harvey, W. A. Stewurt, John Loughlin, Archibald Greenlees, A. M. Salmon, Vernon E. Hodges, W. J. Walker, J. H. Wurde- arranged for the social entertainment of the delegates during their stay in this city. A committee known as the committee on social entertainment, of which Rev. Byron Sunder- land, D. D., is chairman, has given this matter special attention. They have arranged for a reception by the President and Mrs. Cleveland, a visit to the Corcoran Art Gallery, the privi- leges of several of the clubs will be extended, and then, of couree, there will be receptions and dinner at private houses. Dr. Sunder- laud is the oldest Presbyterian pastor in point of service in this city. In his committee work he has had the able co-operation of the following: Rev. 8. V. V. Holmes, Judge Andrew C. Brad- ley, John R. McLean, Gen. Geo. 8. Shields, H. 0. "Claughton, W E. Curtis, Henry T. Thurber, Col, I. E. Clarke, Rev. Geo. P. Van Wyck, L. D. Wine, John B. Larner, John E. Beall, T. F. Sargent, Dr. J. F. Scott, Edward Graves, Samuel Snow, E.S. Parker, Lee D. Latmer, John R. Young, C. D. Waicott, Dr. James A. Falla, Rev. Joha McLean, Rev. Dr. John Dudley, €. W. Holcomb, W. W. Herron, Rev. Charles M. Livingston, B. D. Stallings, Dr. D. P. Wolhaupter, A. B. Kelley, Thoma: Tavlor, J. B. Smith, John Leetch, Edward H. Eakle,’ Dr. J. E. Carpenter, W. H. Fletcher, ‘Thomas C. Newton, Dr. J. K. Boude, A. R$. Foote, Dr. James’ Laws, Charles A. Baker, '. H. Alexander, A. W. Parker, H. J. Newcomb, Asa Whitehead, Irving Williamson, D. W. Brown, Jobn T. Marchand. SARDIS L. CRISSEY. Perhaps the committee that has been bur- dened with the greatest amount of details is the committee on hospitality, of which Mr. Sardis L. Crissey is chairman. Mr. Crissey has taken upon himself a large share of this work,and the | delegates owe to him largely the very complete arrangements which have been made for their comfort while in this city. All the correspond- ence, and it has been very great, in relation to opping places has been conducted by Mr. rissey, and for the past mouth he has spent a portion of each Jay at the headquarters of the committee writing letters and answering, JOUN D. M CHESNEY. ‘The duties of this committee are of a general sharacter, and many of the details of the ar- rangementsare the result of their deliberations. They have the suvervision and auditing of the accounts, and in other ways render an import- | aateervice. Mr. John D. McChesney is a host | questions by mail. He has the list of delegates and as rapidly as they are assigned quarters the list is made up. Subcommittees will be at the depots to receive the delegates as they ar- ve aud give them directions as to the best Way of reaching their stopping place. In faet, no detail has been neglected. Associated with Mr. Crissey in thia work are the following: Iev. Geo. B. Patch, D.D.. Rev. man, Herman. Koppel. REY. DR. BITTINGER, The fine array of sermonizing ability that will be in the city during the next two weeks is to be enjoyed by the people of this city, at least the church-going people, as, according to cus- tom. the pulpits of the city will be thrown open to the visiting mi All arrangements of tuis character hay asted to a commit- tee, of which Rev. B. F. Bittinger, D. D., is the chairman. The doctor, it is unnecessary to | add, is the pastor of the Westmin city. Associated with him are the following: Rev. John Chester, D. D.; Rev. J.T. Kelley, Nathaniel A. Robbins, Dr. Henry J. Hunt, aron Russell, Lewis B. Parker, John Chandler, Dr. H. L. Mann, F. Witkins, T. F. Swayz Robert Armour, William Adolph and W. H. H. Warman. REV. DR. HAMLIN. Of course it is not to be expected that the members delegates to the assembly should come from all parts of the country to this beautiful city and then not see something of the historic places which lie all arour So, very prop- erly, a committee on excursions was organized. and at its head was placed the popular pastor of the Church of the Covenant, Kev. Teunis 8. Hamlin, D.D, ‘The chairman knows how to work and he also understands something about play time. although, like the average city pas- tor, he ordinarily does not have very much of the latter in his life. However, he knows how George C. Woodruff, A. K. Quaiffe, J. D. Mc= Chesney, Frank B. Smith, Thomas Wilson, Dr. it ought to be done, and s0 a’ recreation pro- gram has been arranged which will no doubt E. Bates, | Church, | and is one of the best-known pastors of the | be appreciated by the ministers and the la who come on toattend the assembly. In the first place the committee has arranged an ex- cursion to Mount Vernon, which will take place on the 20th inst. ‘This will be a big affair, for it is the intention to invite all the commissioners and their wives. The mem- | bers of this committee are as follow B. H, Warner, Rey. George O. Little, Gen. Ed- win Stewart, Weston Flint, Col. L. P. Wright, W. A. H. Church, A. R. Holden, Gov. N. Ordway. H. C. Sherwood. V m Townsend, Frank McClelland, L. . Williamson, A. G: | Wilkinson, Judge Westel Willoughby, 8. R. Finly, Rev. Nehemiah Cobb, G. William Mc- Lanahan, Commodore J. W. Easby, Henry F. Grant, Rev. E. B. Culbertson, Wilson N. Pax- ton, Charles G. Williamson, Preston 8. Smith, Benjamin T. Franklin, James B. Henderson, John I. Stoddard, John Ridout, Madison Whip- ple, James A. Williamson, A. P. Leidy, Dr. J. ©. Adams, J. W. Thompson, Judge MeDiil, Rey. J. L. French. NOBLE D. LARNER. A great deal has tobe done to prepare a church for the business use which such » meet- ing requires. That all this has been well done in the case of the New York Avenue Church will be conceded when the sessions begin. This im- portant duty was performed by the trustees of the church, who were constituted for this pur- pose a special committee. At the head of the committee is the president of the board. Mr. Noble D. Larner, who is one of the well-known and substantial citizens of Washington. The other members are Lewis Clephane, secretary; | John W. Thompson, treasurer; Alexander T. Britton, John M. Harlan, John W. Douglass, J. ©. Wilson, James W BERIAH WILKINS. The amount of printing required is of course very large. In the first place there are the letter heads used in the correspondence, which, | in this instance, contain a good cut of the | church. A list ‘of the local committees. hi been printed in very handsomestyle, the cover being a shade of blue, whic! every ones knows, is the color of the Presbyterian Church, A beautifol etching of the church adorns the | cover and on the last page the seal of thechurch is displayed. The entire production, which makes quite a pamphlet, is artistic and a credit to the good taste of the committee. The chair- man of the committee is Mr. Beriah Wilkins, one of the proprietors of the Post, and_hi associates are as follows: David H, McKee, Rudolph Kauffmann, George C. Gorham, A. J. Halford, Frank 8. Presbrey, S. W. Curriden, H. B, F. McFarland, L. A.’ Coolidge, Charles Moore, Fred Perry Powers, George’ W. Bab- cock, D. F. McGowan, W.' B, Bryan, W. J. Fletcher and M. R. Thorp. NEW YORK AV ENUE CHURCH. til the arrival of Dr. Roberts, the stated clerk of the general assembly. He is expected to reach this city early next week. In a general way, however, it is known that at the first sce- sion, next Thursday morning at 11 o'clock, the retiring moderator will preach the sermon to the assembly. In the afternoon the election of the new moderator will be held, and this prom- ises to be an interesting and exciting event. In the evening there will be a special service with communion for the commissioners at the New York Avenue Church and en Friday morn- ing the new moderator will commence his duties and announce the committees of the general assembly. On the following Sunday morning the new moderator will preach a ser- mon to the assembly and in the evening some rominent preacher, just who it has not yet n decided, will be asked to conduct the serv= ices. From the churches of all denominations in the city who are accustomed to exchange pulpits have come tenders of their pulpits to members of the assembly. The committee on | pulpits is making assignments for the Sundays intervening between the sessions of the assem- bly, but will not have them completed until the last of next week. Of the 586 commissioners all but two had been heard from up to yesterday, and quarters have already been secured for upward of 500 of them. For the most part they will be as- signed to the different hotels, the headquarters for many of them being ‘at the Arlington, Quite a number, however, will be entertain at private houses. Tor each commissioner an alternate was selected at the same time, but #0 far only two cases have been heard from where the commissioner will be unable to come and his place be taken by the alternate. SOCIAL ENTERTAINMENTS. A number of social entertainments are being arranged for the pleasure of the assembly. On Monday, May 22, the commissioners will be re- ceived by the President and Mrs. Cleveland, and on the afternoon of Tuesday Mrs. Brice will give a lawn fete in their honor. The only excursion definitely planned so far is one to PHILIP F, LARNER, It will be necessary in order to provide ac- commodations for the many delegates and spec- tators who will wish to attend the sessions to | have a thorough system of ushering. This has | been provided for in the appointment of a| committee whose sole duty will be to take | charge of the veating in the church, At the | head of this committee is Mr. Philip F. Larner, | one of the active men in the New York Avenue Church, whose experience is of the greatest value. ‘Mr. Larner will be assisted by the fol- lowing: Edward H. Eakle, secretary; L. C. Willmmson, C. B, Schaefer, J. N. Rose, W. Terrell, J.’ C. Allen, D.’E, Hodges, H. Knight, G. F. Auld, ea ee THE GREAT ASSEMBLY. General Program of the Meeting—Matters to Be Considered. The one hundred and fifth general assembly of the Presbyterian Church will consist of 586 commissioners from all the different presby- teries of the church throughout the country. In May, 1788, the first general assembly was held and at that time it included aitogether but 419 congregations. From that small beginning it has grown untilit has become one of the most powerful of all religious denominations. In some ways the Washington meeting of the general assembly is expected to be the most im- portant of all that have ever been held in its more than a century of existence. ‘This is on account of the seriousness of the matters that will come up for action and discussion, if not for final settlement. First among all these is the famous case of Dr. Briggs of the Union Seminary, whose trial on the charge of heresy lax occupied so much of the attention and time of the presbytery of New York and has twice before been up before the general assem- biy. It comes up this time on an appeal from the presbytery of New York. It might just as well have been sent to the «ynod of thit state as the next in authority above the court ap- pealed from. but in that event it must still ave come before the general assembly as the place of last resort, and then, as is urged by those who favor the direct appeal to the assem- biy, the synod of New York, comprising up- ward of a fifth part of the entire church,would have been barred from action upon it, THE BRIGGS CASE. ‘The Briggs case is worthy of all the attention it has received or can receive, for it is admitted by even the most conservative of Presbyterians that it involves within it principles that are of Vital interest to the life and well being of the chureh. When the charges of heresy were first preferred a Dr. Briggs, who is a profes- sor in the Union Theological Seminary, for his | refusal to admit the divine authenticity of cer- | tain portions of the Scripture, the charges were referred to the New York presbytery. That body dismissed the charges, but the last general assembly referred the matter back with instruc- tions to try the case. After a long trial, that is still f epublte, Dr. Briggs was acq y then appealed the ease to th iy for final adju- diention, ‘The vote by which an acquittal was reached was a close one and it was decided to Le best to leave such a matter to the general ase sembly us the court of last report. If it goes back to the synod this vear and is decided there the chances are that it will be appealed again {ine side or the other to the general as- ‘ides the case of Dr. Briggs there are other matters that are of almost equal im- portance that must be acted upon by the gen- eral assembly. Among these are the question of the of the articles of faith and the seminary question. THE GENERAL PROGRAM. ‘The sessions of the general assembly will be held in the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, They will last probably for twelve 3, as that is the customary time. There are to be sessions in the morn- iny and afterroon, and if it becomes evident that this will not give enongh time to finish up all the business that must be attended to then the evenings will be utilized for the purpose. As a rule, however, the evenings will be devoted to holding meetings of a special character and devoted to special objects, such as the matter of home and foreign missions, church extension and erection, education and | temperance and affairs of that sort. \ ‘The program for the sessions has not yet been Mount Vernon on the 20th, when the commis- sioners and some few others will be the guests of the entertainment committee on « trip on the Macalester. It is also expected that a drive through Washington and to Arlington may be arranged, a8 well ag a trip to-Gettysburg, but thefr plans are still under consideration. ‘There are a number of standing committees of the assembly, and places for their meetings have been provided. “The committee on leave of absence will meet in the north Bible class room of the chureh; on freedmen, in the north organ gallery; on missions relief, in the south gallery; on mileage and on finance, in the Wid- decombe building on H_ street; on bi overtures and on Indinns, at the theological seminaries,church erection and cor- respondence, at Foundry Chyrch; on church polity and home missions, education, at the Oxford, and on foreign’ missions, 'benevo- Hence and narrative, at the Young Men's Chris- tian Association building. The trustees of the Corcoran Gallery have arranged for the free admission of the com- missioners on certain days, to be fixed here- after, and the Cosmos, University and Down- town’ clubs have tendered their hospitaiities, while the rooms of the Young Men’s Christian Association will be thrown open to the mem- bers. Dr. Welling of the Columbian Univer- sity is desirous to meet the members at a recep- tion and collation to be held at the university, and it is likely that his invitation will be ac- cepted. THE WOMEN'S MEETINGS. ‘The following is the program of the women’s meetings to be held during the general assem- bly at the Church of the Covenant: Friday, May 19—Annual meeting of women’s executive committee of home missions; devo- tional meeting, 9:30 a.m.; morning session, 10 o'clock; afternoon session, 2 o'clock; popular meeting, 8 p.m. Addresses by missionaries at all of these meetings. Saturday, May 20—Excursion to Mt. Vernon, with general aseombly to visiting delegates. Monday, May 22. morning—A drive to Ar- lington to be given to visiting delegates by the Women’s Presbyterial Society; leave Church of Covenant at 9:30 a.m. 2 p.m.—Women's for- eign missionary meeting. 5 p.m.—Reception to missionaries by ladies of Church of the Cove- nant, to which visiting Indies, members of Presbyterial Society and delegates to general assembly are invited. 28, 2 p.m.—Meeting of nodical committees of home mis- sions will be held for the election of officers of the women's executive committee and for the presentation of reports. Wednesday, May 24, 2 p.m.—A conference of synodital committees of home missions for discussion of methods of work. Prayer meeting at 4:30 each day after Mon- aa: Lunch will be served to Indies attending the meetings on Friday who live too far away to go to their homes by ladies of the churc,. oa The General Assembly Star. ‘Tur Evexryo Sran will publish full reports of the proceedings of the Presbyterian general assembly, which will begin its sessions at the New York Avenue Church, in this city, next Thursday. The regular edition of the paper will contain the report of the proceedings up to the hour of going to press,and at the close of each day’s session a special edition will be printed covering the entire day's proceedings. This will give the earliest report in fall of all the discussions of the body. Persons who wish to order Tue Stan for the two weeks, in order to obtain this prompt and full account of the doings of the general assembly, can have this special edition sent them by indicating that they desire it. Tue Star will be mailed to any address in the United States, Canada or Mex- ico for two weeks, beginning Thursday, May 18, for 25 cents, —S Negotintions are now far enough advanced so that the reorganization of the Union Stock Yards Company, Sioux City Dry Goods Com- pany and the Sioux City Engine Works, which were involved in the recent fuilures, is assured. Cyrus C. Nolan of the Yale junior class died in New Haven Tuesday morning of peritonitis, He had been sick only since Friday, rowing with his class last Thursday. He was twenty- three years old and came from Chicago. ‘Wild’s Linoleum.: When your deaier sells you this well-known brand, which is always plainly marked, he is taking no risk of selling you an inferior article. Every- body knows by experience that “WILD'S LIN LEUM” looks vest, wears best and is best in every way. definitely made out, nor can it be made out un- ! | Westminster confession, authorized by the as- Jiong in service; that such a matter ISSUES TO BE TRIED. Great Questions Coming Before the Presbyterian Assembly. THE BRIGGS CASE REVIEWED. Both Sides of One of the Most Important Chureh Controversies of Modern Times— ‘Technical Questions Involved —The Status of the Union Theological Seminary. The annual meeting of the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (to give its full title) will begin in this city May 18. It usually continues in ses- sion eleven or twelve days, Some matters of exceptional importance are to come up this Year, which may possibly prolong the meeting. The most widely known of these are the re- vision of the confession of faith, the relation of Union Seminary to the assembly and the case of Prof. Briggs. The revision of the sembly at Saratoga in 1890, was always opposed | by a large party in the church. and has been #0 | cautiously, not to say hesitatingly, made that | in the present form it has few enthusiastic ad- vocates. The presbyteries have been voting | on the proposed amendments during the winter and spring and the result will be announced at the assembly. It is generally supposed the amendments have failed of the necessary votes. The revision does not give the liberal party in | the church the relief which many of them de- sired, and their indifference, joined to the hos- tility of the conservatives to any change, has probably defeated the entire movement for this year. It is not likely to constime much of the assembly's time. A proposal for a new and briefer creed has been made by many presby- teries, and this may be discussed at length, but will probably be determiued without great dificulty. The other topies referred to—the cases of Union Seminary and of Prof. Briggs—have ab- sorbed much attention in the last year or two. They are related, but are quite distinct. An outline of the history of these cases may be of interest to the readers of Tax Stan. THE UNION SEMINARY CASE. The Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York was founded in 1836. For thirt; four years it was not subject to ecclesiastical control. Its directors and professors were Presbyterians and so was a large proportion of its students. When the Presbyterian Church was divided in 1837 its sympathies were with the new school branch. “It was well officered | and well attended and did an efficient work. Its perfectly independent position was changed by its own act in 1870. To understand the occasion for this act we must remember that there were theological seminaries which had been founded and were still governed by the general assembly. ‘The assembly elected their directors and their professors. All these be- longed to the old school branch, Princeton Sem- inary being the most important of them. Princeton had long felt that direct govern- ment by the assembly was inexpedient and was prepared to respond tothe move made by Union, ‘This was, in brief, the proposal to give up a| part of its autonomy to the general assembly of | the reunited church, provided the assembly | would give up « part of its authority over | Princeton and the other seminaries which the | assembly had itself established. Union Sem- iary, which has always elected its own profess- ors, proposed to report to the genersl assem- bly’ all appointments of professors, agreeing not to regard any such appointment asa com-| plete election if disapproved by a majority of the assembly. The condition was that the as- sembly would intrust the election of professors in its seminaries to their respective boards of directors, subject, in like manner, to the dis- | approval of the assembly. The arrangement was made and continued for more than twenty | years. It was, however, subjected to no real | test until 1891. Union Seminary. like the others, reported reguiarly all appointments of profess- ors, as well as other matters supposed to be of interest to the church, but the assembly disap- proved of none of them and there was no fric- tion. In 1891 the general assembly for the first time exercised what had come to be known as the “veto power.” ‘The conilict between the assembly and Union Seminary began at this point. Union Seminary has declined to recog- nize the veto, and has formally withdrawn from the agreement of 1870. These are facts, and yet, stated in this bald way, they do not convey a just idea of the situation. The ques- tion arose in this way: Mr. Charles Butler. a venerable friend of Union Seminary and the president of its board of directors, established | in 1890 a professorship of biblical’ theology in theseminary. After the chair was established he signified his wish that it should be occupied by Prof. Charles A. Briggs, who for some sev- enteen years had held the Old Testament chai in the same institution. The transfer was m and in January, 1891, Dr. Briggs was inaugu- rated. His inaugural address contained utte ances which to many in the Church seemed | heretical, and the assembly, when the transi was reported, vetoed it, at the same time ap- pointing a committee to confer with Union Seminary “in regard to the relations of said seminary to the general assembly.” The board of directors of the seminary took the ground that the transfer of Dr. Briggs was « matter of internal management; the simple acquiring of duties in part new to a professor who had been ust be wholly rithin the control of the directors, and that, since the board made 4 clear distinction between such a transfer and an appointment or election de novo, the two being under different regulations according to the constitution of the seminary, and since the veto power had been conceded to the assembly only with reference jto an original appointment, the assembly's right to veto the transfer of Dr. Biggs could not be conceded. They voted to abide by the revious action of transfer ard ret. Briggs in’ his professorsup, beving in meantime, as they asserted, satisfied themselves that the public clamor against him by a party in the church was groundless. ‘The assembly committee of conference held, as the assembly had held, that a transfer was an appointment under the agreement of 1870, and that the veto was within the right of the assembly. The conferences held with the directors were fruit- less, and the committee reported to the assem- bly at Portiand in 1892 recommending that the status quo be recognized. A supplementary | report, signed by certain members of that committee who were present at Portland, rec- THE ASSEMBLY STANDS FIRM. Meantime the seminary directors made a re- Port to the Portland assembly presenting the situation from their point of view, and urging | the reasons why they felt compelled to abide by ‘their original action. In addition to this they presented a memorial to the assembly, in which, on the ground of general expedienc: in view of the turmoil occasioned in the church | by the exercise of the veto power by the assem- bly, and of the provisions of the Presbyterian system for securing the orthodoxy of all its min- isters, including professors as well as they requested the assembly to unite with them in ‘dissolving the agreement of 1870. The | assembly. however, reafirmed the action taken ‘at Detroit, refused the request of the seminary directors, adopted the proposal for arbitration and appointed a new committee to secure “closer relations” between the assembly and the seminaries, THE SEMINARY SIDE OF IT, The present situation is summed up by one of the friends of the seminary as follows: “The Union Seminary directors regarded | the veto of 1891 as a usurpation of the assem- biv of rights not ceded to it by the seminary. They cousider the agreement of 1870 to be arrangement terminable at any time by either Party, to have none of the features of a busi- hess contract, since the seminary received no valuable consideration, and had been moved to cede the veto right to the assembly purely from | good will to the other seminaries, and the de- sire to promote peace and brotherly feeling. They had now become convinced that it was inexpedient to continue the arrangement; they were also assured by their legal advisers that it Was illegal, as involving a cession of rights vested by the charter in the board of directors alone. Accordingly they voted, October, 1892, to rescind the act of cession and cancel the agreement. There was, therefore, no occasion for them to nominate arbitrators or to meet the new committee of conference.” “So the matter now stands, and these facts | will be reported to the assembly in Washing- ton. It is evident that there is a rea! difference of opinion as to the scope of the agreement of 1870, but this difference of opinion is sharp- ened by the fact that the seminar; tation results in keeping Dr. Briggs in his pro- fessorship. The seminary is financially inde- | pendent; its roll of students shows little, if any, lecline in numbers; its graduates are in de- mand as pastors, and it is difficult to see how the assembly can inany way enforce its opinion against the seminary, even if it should desire to do so. Moreover, the directors of the seminary are men of the highest standing as Christian gentlemen, and the rough attacks made upon them by those who quite fail to appreciate their situation and their sense of responsibility for the discharge of their trust certainly appear to a candid outsider far from becoming. Perhaps the very impotence of the assembly to do any real injury to the seminary makes feeling more bitter. Whatever is done, the result will probably make some important changes of kind or degree in the relations be- tween all the Presbyterian seminaries and the highest ecclesiastical body of the Presbyterian Chureh.” THE CASE OF DR. BRIGGS. So it will be seen the directors of Union Seminary regard the seminary question as set- tled; but the case of Dr. Briggs is not at all settled in any view of it, The following is a brief sketch of it, written for Tae Stam by | Gistinguished theologian who 1s on what is known as the “Briggs side” of the case: “Dr. Briggs has been a professor in the Union Seminary since 1874. He is a man of high character, great learning and boundless energy. It was mainly through him that the Presbyie rian Review was founded in 1880, and be was for ten years its editor in conjunction with Dr. A” A. Hodge and Dr. FL. Patton. During that period it was recog- nized ‘that there were different schools of thought in the Presbyterian Church, and the Keview was intended to represent them all. Dr. Briggs represented the progressive school nd presented in its pages many of the opin- | ions which have been attacked of late. | opinions received not the indorsement of hi conservative colleagues in the editorial board, but their sanction as proper for publication and as representing a legitimate type of Pres- byterian doctrine. The non-progrestives and reactionaries, however, naturally came to look upon him ' with suspicion. In 1890, his connection with the Presbyterian Review having ceased, and that quarterly having been discontinued, a new Review took its place, wholly dominated by the conservatives. For the time the only channel for the expression of the liberal views in theological discussion was through newspapers, pamphlets and books, The revision debate was stirring the eburch. Dr. Briggs, though always advocating new creed by preference, threw himself vigorously into the revision movement and irritated the conservatives still more. He published about the same time a book entitled “Whither?” in which he took the ground that the church, under the lead of popular theologians, had drifted away from the historical and proper meaning of its confession of faith, and that the true course lay in returning to’ the broader views of the Westminster divines and making | these a starting point for further advance in theology. He wrote unxparingly and enraged some of the popular theologians and their friends and followers, THE FAMOUS INAUGURAL ADDRESS, “Thus everything was ripe for an assault upon him when the inaugural address was de- livered in January, 1891, on the occasion of his transfer to the new chair of biblical the- ology in Union Seminars. This address was on the authority of Holy Scripture, and in- cluded a bold plea for progress in theology, with the Scriptures, as distinguished from mere human system of doctrine, as the foundation, ‘The outburst of criticism that greeted this ad- dress from conservative quarters cannot be un- derstood without remembering the various hos- tile elements which had been gradually arraying themselves against the author. There was sin. cere apprehension that the foundations of faith would be weakened: there was opposition to the revision movement—none the less intense that it seemed at that time to be defeated: there was persoual zeal in behalf of traditional opin- ns Which had been attacked and in behalf of respected teachers who had heid those opinions there was resentment for supposed personal slights—as in the rejection of articles offered to the Presbyterian Review; there was | the dread of losing power and authority in the church, voices of many different qualities combined in the chorasof condemnation. One outcome of the popular clamor was the veto of the assembly, but this was for our present pur- Foxes incidental only. The popular clamor hind emboldened zealous men in the presbytery of New York to move fora committee of in- | quiry into the inaugural address without wait- | ing for the veto. The movement was unex- pected. Itearried. The committee reported, recommending judicial process against Dr. Briggs on the ground of the address. After hot debate, and in the temporary absence of many of the liberal members of the presbytery, the recommendation was adopted. A com: mittee, substantially the same with that reco: mending process, was appointed to arrange the necessary proceedings. This was in early Ma: 1891. The end of May brought the veto of the assembly. The ease in presbytery was inter- rupted by the summer. In October it was brought up, and the committee made formal charges of heresy against Dr. Briggs. Two | motions made to dismiss the case were defeated | by narrow majorities. Trial began November 5, 1891. The defendant presented a demurrer, and exposed the weakness of the indictment as drawn, so that now,on a new motion, the presbytery by a two-thirds vote disinissed the case. HOW IT COMES BEFORE THE assemmi, — | “Why was not this theend of it, as it would | have been in a criminal court? This is one of | the dificult things for a layman to understand. | It came about as follows: | “The Presbyterian church has a code of pro- | cedure in judicial cases calied the book of disci- | This book of discipline provides that a | judicial process may begin on an indictment framed cither by an individnal prosecutor or by a church session or presbytery of ite own It provides. farther, that in the latter ase the Presbyterian Church as a whole sball arded as the real prosecutor and an | original party in the suit, ax the commonwealth i It provides, thirdly, ces, the session oF y ‘shall appoint one or more of its pers a committee to conduct the 1 in all its stages in whatever judi- I the final issue be reached.’ ~The ppeal is taken by persons claiming to have cen so appointed and claiming as such to have the right to appeal. Those objecting to the appeal altirm that ppellanis were not ap- ie pointed as a committee of prosceution. ‘This is asimple question of fact ought to be capable of determination by the record. But | itis obj . further, that a committee of prosecution, even if Tight to appeal froma decision of the body which appointed it, When advocates of the appeal claim that since the entire church is law the prosecutor and an original part, therefore the committee of prosecution mu be regarded as representing the entire church’ in these functions, it is replied, first, | that the voice of, say.the presbytery.until over- | ruled, i+ the voice of the church, and that the | Presbytery and the church cannot appoal dul: appointed, has no against itself; secondly, ‘has the authority to represent the entire c in appointing the committee it must have thority to represent it in determining when the committee shall cease to act; thirdly, that «uch & vast power—the to override the ap- pointing body, and keep the whole church in excitement for a number of years—must be conferred by special statute, if it exist, and that since there is no such statute, the infer- ence is that the power does not exist, and finally that it is contrary to the usage of all modern jurisprudence and to equity that a public Prosecutor should appeal against a verdict acquitting an accused person. It is maintained by this party that the duty of conducting the Prosecution ‘in all its stages in whatever judi- catory” applies only to the court of original Jurisdiction and to appellate courts betore which a condemned person may bring his case on appeal, and does not at all involve the right of a prosecuting committee to appeal when @ prosecuted mis acquitted. Unless these conditions should be overcome by the friends of the sppeal, it would seem as if their opponents had rather the best of the argument, Bat that would mean a denial of the right of the general assembly to entertain the ap) and the question is whether prejudice and the desire tocondemn Dr. may not weigh more than sound argument. It would certainly bea great pity if this were so, for it would tend to diminish the respect in which Presb terian government and procedure is held in the “A complication appears in the fact that the ‘ppellants have done an unusual thing in ap- Pealing directly from the presbytery to the general assembly and ignoring the «ynod, Which is an intermediate court. They attempt to justify this proceeding, but it does not ap- Pear that their arguments are very conclusive. At all events, it is claimed by their opponents that whatever force these arguments may have is more than offset by the fact that the whole question of their right to appeal at all is now Pending before the synod of New York: it is rgued that to act upon an appeal when there is © possibility that the appellants will be ad- | Judged incompetent is foolish procedure, and, besides, that it is unfair to Dr. Briggs to deprive him of the opportunity of a hearing before the synod. Precedents are adduced for the dismissal of an appeal by a general ase sembly avd for the reference of it to a synod, when the synod has been overleaped in this way. Possibly the precedents for referring & matter under euch circumstances to the evnod in question may indicate the path of prudent compromise, which moderate men of toth parties can agreo to ‘The synod will then ve to pass upon it in the autumn, subject to an appeal to the next assembly. In any ever it in clear that the case of Dr. Briggs will offer nice questions of ecclosiastical law for the assembly to discuss and decide. THE THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, “The liberal party in the Presbyterian Church has the strong conviction that the con- stitutional questions already considered would be decided in accordance with its interpreta- tion but for the theological prejudice which has been aroused. Whether from prejudice or from whatever cause the curious fact is that it is the progressives that are insisting upon ob- servance of the constitution of the church, and appearing to form the constitutional party, while the conservatives «pend little time in answering constitutional arguments and much in decrying Yr. Briggs’ opinions and in pointing out the calamities which will follow @ failure to condemn hitn immediately, i. e., to Teverse at once the acquittal given by the pres- bytery of New York. ‘Their view seems to be that the peril is so imminent that questions of law must give way, as frontier towns justify committees. What then are the theo- | logical issues and what is this grave denger in Dr, Brigge’ opinions? “44 careful historian will record certain things as not involved. Dr. Briggs does not attack | the Westminster confession of faith and the catechisms. As far as we have been able to learn, no living man reveres these documents more than he does, or has studied them in all the light of history, menuseript records and church life more patiently than he has. Oneof his chief grounds of attack upon those whom he calls ‘traditionalists’ is that they have de- parted from the Westminster standards, and are setting up private tests of orthodoxy based on their own non-Westminster opinions. With reference to the divine decrees, which have played @ large part in the revision controver- sies, he is known to be personally very conser- vative, Still less would it be fair to say that Dr. Briggs attacks the Bible. He is recognized as a profound, spiritually minded student of the Scriptures, and a sincere Chris- tian. It is not because he Jenies what the Bible and confession explicitly teach, or teaches what the Bible and confession clearly deny, that he has been arrail The matter is one of inter- pretation again. | He holds and teaches certain iiefe which his accusers declare to be incon- sistent with statements of the Bible and con- fession. He denios the inconsistency, aud the presbytery of New York, althongh it does nut say that it believes bis opinions to be true, agrees with him to the extent of declaring that, whether true or not, in ite judgment ther are not incompatible with sincere acceptance of the Bible and the confession. “Therefore. there is no proper debate as to whether he denies inspiration or denies thatthe Scriptures came from God, or denies eternal punishment, or 1s a Universalist, or believes in © probation after death. No well-informed and calm-minded person can suppose that these ‘things are true. DR. BRIGGS’ UTTERANCES, “The following opinions, found in the inauga- ral address, are those for which he bas actually been tried: “1. That God speaks directly to men with di- vine authority, through the reason und through the church, aswell as through the Bibie. 2 That there may have been errors in the original autographs of the Scriptures. 3. That Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that Ieaink did not write half of the book that bears his name. 4. That the sanctification of Christian people is not altogether completed at death, but Koes on in the state between death and the final judgment. ‘What the prosecutors before the preebytery of New York were called upon to show was, not that these beliefs were not true, but thet ther were not lawful—in other words, that they deny or involve the denial of ersential doctrines of the Bible and the confession. They were not able to convince the presbytery that this is the case, If the assembly entertains their aj they will try to persuade the assembly that the presbytery ought to have been convinced, and that its judgment of acquittal was erroneous. Weave read their arguments with care, as @ matter of interest in ecciesiastical law, and if these arguments represent the full strength of their case it does not seem to us chat the pres- bytery erred. The prosccutors, as we look at it, seem rather to have tried to show two other things—that these opinions are untrue aud that they are dangerous. They may, however, be both of these, and yet not be opposed to Bible and confession, because neither the Bible nor the confession covers ail possible opinions, and there may be wrong opinions which neither of them condemns or even mentions. Dr. Briggs on the other hand eluimed in his argument be- fore the presbytery both that his opinions wera consistent with the Presbyterian standards, which was ali he needed to argue for, and that they were true. “All this seems, very possibly, abstrase and tedious to many readers. But the interest and even essential importance of it arises from the fact that the Presbyterian Church has a written standard of doctrine by which ts ministers must be judged and that the civil courts will protect the rights of a minister who may re- rom discipline which violates the a imposed on church as weil as minis= the written constitution, “But, of course, stro arguments may be brought forward, and perhaps the asserbiy may be convinced that the dociriaes of Dr. Briggs violate the const:tution of the eburch, Certainly large numbers of good mea believe that they do. “Besides this it is strongly urged that productive and undermin faith of many vbjection urged against the hat it makes salvation possible for a not have the or who rej is thought that Dr. Br possibility that God persons in their mi stitutions of the chu verted and saved. that the whole Presbyte the Bible. admits the vie and hearts or in the in- and hix friends reply an Charch believes of the Bible and that all dying in infancy will be «aved, so that his ven from this point of view, is not ve terrible, but that really what he said was th some men get certainty about God when they commune with Him in teir hearts or in the worship and sacraments of the chureh, even if such certal 4 not come to them from ‘They fay, further, that be docs not set reason or church above the Bible make ate and perhaps ing anthorities, but that he believes and has aflirmed that, riently understood, they all gree. And they point ovt that neither bible nor confession anywhere rays that God does not & ecertainty through His spirit in the reasom or in the institutions of the church, THE INERRANCY QUESTION. “The greatest stir has been made over the inerrancy question, ‘The conservatives say that there cannot have been auy errors in the origi- (Continued on page eleven.)