Evening Star Newspaper, May 25, 1893, Page 7

THE EVENING STAR: WASHINGTON, D C., THURSDAY, MAY 25. 1893—TWELVE PAGES, T Paniel Cook, Manasquan, 1421 K st. ‘North Texas—Decosta H. Dodson, Leonard, Windsor. risand Oringe—Heury M. Storrs. Orange, Ebbitt, | “Hi. Parmalee: Lecusrd, tiene Willian W. Howellwar, Dover, Evbitt. C. H. Jones, Fulton st.. Ebbitt. Frank §: Bradford. Morr, ! v confession is altogether inadequate in|Dr. Birch spoke of the spirit of | of New York, and to determine whether it | time the most pleasant, duty of this committee | {q7 T > DR. BRIGGS POSITION. its doctrine of the reason. As 1 said | criticism which under the name of Christian | should take from bim the external call given | is to adequately express the appreciation and | W HERE TO FIND THEM some years ago, ‘the reason, the conscienc? eatened to sweep away the one him in ordination, and whether it should say, | gratitude of this body of women for the and the religious feeling, ali of which have en upon which they had built their | so iong as its au:hority goes, that he could no | abounding and gracious hospitality which bas arisen during these discussions of the last cen- homes, and patting their Christian | longer be a minister of Jesus Christ. greeted us in this beautifal city, to mention the How He Stands Before the Presby- | tury, into» light and vigor unknown and un- | faith in peril. were told, he snid, that an | Dr. Briggs then gave a brief narrative of the | very name: of which thrills us with pride and | The Commissioners to the Great anticipated at the reformation, shonld not be | apyeal from a verdi [be | anneal fro ict of acquittal was out. of | proceedings in the New York, presbyt Ac- | joy that we are Americans, citizens of these pate ther ighe hs Menke are, —_s * antagonized the one with the other, or with order. He spoke of the presbytery as having | cording to the maxim of civillaw he maintained | re-United States. resbyterian e] ,. ‘sth wick —J. T. Duffield. Princeton, Ebbitt. terian General Assembly. Spirit of God.” raised the banner of rebellicn. ‘The acquittal, | that this acquittal should be final. ‘The only | First. We would endeavor to thank the com- ite ring, John Dizon, Trenton. Arilagton. i : Thomas S Low rrathmore, he said, was no acquittal at all, with the quali~| purpose of the appeal was manifestly to re-| mittee of arrangements, who, with such pains Soe Edward 1: Groas, tocstin keine: ERRORS IN THE SCRIPTURES. ‘ " Solita ficatious with which it was secompanied. ~ eiegemnes a5 By K_ Peckinpengh, 508 Aste “ verse the verdict of acquittal. Nothing but | taki re and indefatigable effort, provided E ‘g ~ Cilia M. Lanning, ‘Tren THE INERRANCY QUESTION. | “The uly errors I hare found or ever recog- | "Tererring to the citation from the Craighead | imperative somone could frctty in ote yee oe | ene oe ¢ p= THEIR CITY ADDRESSES. Z n for our entertainment long before’ we came, Newion—Wan- Thouson Stomaee save. | Olympian a Mi nized in Holy Scriptures have been beyond the | case that no man ean be convicted of heresy by | the Christian world such a coutve as entertain | and who, out of theabandunce of thelr hospi . Bryant, Asbary. tea New York ave Bi, Keliy. south Benge ta Tange of faith and practice, and therefore they do | implication or inference, Dr. Birch said the |ing the appeal. An ecclesiastic court | tality, arranged the deiightful excursions to A Full List of the Members of the Jour D Simmons, Deckertown, 924 New Yorkave, | Pucet Sound CW. Stewart ‘ 7 a ‘ 2 i Vey je Body | _ Joseph Garrison, Junctic Lincoin. George H. Kellogg, Pair Ha not impair the infallibility of Holy Scripture as | Craighead case and thix ‘were not analogous, | could do a minister vastly greater injury | Mount Vernon and to Arlington, both of which a2 Went Jersey Ry Bia eon wae The Dettverance of the Assembly of 1892 | 101 imbait fhe infallibiity of Holy Scrip The Apostlo Paul, he aid, had condemned the | than the mutilation of bietmabse or the dept. | have so cntiched the memory et thesaccation | Bd Thelr Locations in Washtugton—the | "{tisa'¥uaty 2 Beldeeton, 160 Pak DUP Oe | SR te Rncokk, Renee Wee eta and the Defendant's Protest Against It—) «But it is claimed that I recognize errors in | heretical Jews scores of times by clear logical | vation of his life. The ministers of Jesus Christ | as to forever render more hallowed the land | Synods and Presbyteries Represented—The Pa hg beg yo A, Adair. Moscow. [isho, Buckingham. Some Extracts From Dr. Briggs’ Defense | matters beyond the range of faith and practice, | inferences. The use made of the ion | are called to deny themselves, to take up the | which with pride and joy we call “the land of | Ofmcial Register of the Body. g Beene to That Will Prove of Interest. T excite suspicion as to the infallibility of Holy | from the Craighead case was, he said, an eva- | cross and follow their Master. They are calied | the free and the home of the brave.” v1 “rng Synod of Washington, Algsks—Samuel H. King. Litchfield. ——— i i ¥ ih - Arjzona—c. R. Ni a . Chi Archibald Ds Seripture thin the range of — faith sion, what the lawyers called @ plea of avoid- | to suffer for His sake. There may be unworthy | Second. Surely they are no formal words 5 J. M. Creigtiton, Fheenix, Ariz. Fredonia. 6 ee urrie. Superior, 1307 14thet, as and” practice. You are entitled — to | ance. ministers; there may be some who make the | with which we would thank the Church of the | | Bolow will be found a list of the commission | Ri Grande "it M, Shicids: Ls Graces. | eae ao or that opinion for yourselves, but you DON'T INDORSE BRIGGS’ OPINIONS. ministry a mere profession, a means of liveli- | Covenant for the use of their beautiful house of | €rs to the general assembly, with their locations | santa Fe_Jicepd Gilhee Morn ee ee tian, La: Crome, Rbbitt Dr. Chas. A. Briggs stands before the general | have no right to force your opinion upon im Of those who had supported Dr. Briggs, both | 200d; such a minister could not be expected to | worship, which has met not only every necessity | in Washington so far as they have been re- ‘Harvey, Santa Fe, 1207 14th st. W. F- Winchester, leedabare Ot >1508 28thet, Assembly in case that body votes to entertain | The confession does not say ‘rule of all things, z “ ‘Synod of New York: Milwaukee—c. 5. ao : ; in a | tke ® serious view of the obligations upon a | of convention, but whose wondrous harmony of | corded at the local committee headquarters: | ay the appeal very much as a defendant be-|but “the rule of faith and practice.” You | 9 press and pulpit, ho believed not one in @ | true minister of Christ. outline and beauty of form and color have posh pg oni rg Ray peauel ty Bigear, Balston Center, 1827 Hat, foree court which had already pamed on one | ™USt judge by the confession, not by | hundred would subscribe to the inaugural ad-| ro depose the truc minister, to deprivo him | helped to lift our thoughts above the sordid and | Aventi_A. Fresneinats sc epoty done Jen r, wy, Arbo. Exyieriae Ger. Greentni oai at. an Mateo, Lincoln Hotel. Bingismton—J.L Hoberteen, Courtiand, hata ‘obertson, Courtiand, Hamfiton. shure, 6.C..1616 L |“ John Van nion, 1234 Massachusetts av. e your fears, or your impressions, or by | dress, for they believed it contained funda-| of his ecclesinstic life, was far worse than to | earthly end to attune them to praise and. wor- | *Yantic>4. Frayer, Walterboro, %.¢ of the most important issues in the case, that | the conclusions you have made. But | mental errors. For this reason they wanted the | mutilate his limbe or ‘take his physical life. | ship. We would not fail to ‘netic the Inzuri- | East Beeciens, Waite. 525 of inerrancy. If the utterances of the last | is it trac that fallibility in the Bible in matters | case brought before the asvembly. Would they be guilty of that which the Consti-| ance of plants and flowers that has freshly ‘ield—T. A, Thonpeon, Blac General assembly are considered binding on beyond thescope of the divine revelation im-| Some had assumed that the persistence of the | tution of our great republic forbade under | greeted every session, nor the sweet music . T. Grigg. Sumpter. 8.'C., 14 the {t one it seems to be a logical conso-| Pairs the infalibility in matters 2 Tithin | prosecution waa an gxbibition of willful disre- | eriminal laws? that has inspired and aided our service, nor the | Knox—H: B. Wilson, Atianta, 19220 11h st, — : ivi y lof cl i : st. s ‘hat the assembly cannot tolerate any | ‘be, Scope, of, divine m? We gard of the peaceof the churchandof a religious THERE MUST BE AN AGGRIEVED PARTY. attendance of ushers and messengers who have Ain. $.¢..1892 130, S (ine Ht Coles, 18 —— reopens Ceetend oe contributed so much to the order and harmony 2 {mputation of error in the Scriptures. even in| ‘ritings were not composed in heaven by | ‘The interest of the a He argued that appeals under all laws were | contri so mi THE WOMEN’S noaRD. Delegates Coming to Attend the Great Mls- sionary Meetings. ypellee in this case wi havea much better chance of securing a con- | viction of heresy than it had before the New York presbytery. DR. BRIGGS’ PROTEST. Dr. Briggs in his address before the New York presbytery in his own defense protested most vigorously against this deliverance and ued that it had no binding power. “Bis said: (a) “The general assembly when | it makes a deliverance gives the opinion of all | those who may be present and who may con- | sent to it, Such deliverance has no more | weight than the names of such persons can gi it “It does not bind the minority. (b) The general assembly has no authority | under the constitution to make dogma by de- liverance. (c) The general assembly has no authority under the constitution to give an interpreta- tion of the doctrine of the church by deliver- ance and impose such interpretation upon the presbyteries and the ministry. (d) It was a gross breach of propriety and a flagrant violation of right for the general assembly to attempt to decide a case by deliverance which it had a few hours — previo to be approached by judicial process. (e) The ordination vow is just as binding | on the general assembly which imposes it as | it is upon the minister who takes it. The gen- | eral assembly ought not to take the initiative | in such a violation of obligation. (f) If the Presbyterian Charch in the United States of America should ever decide in a Judicial case im accordance with said Ueliverance no self-respecting biblical scholar could for a moment remain in that branch of | the Presbyterian Church. He would need no reminder, still less process of discipline, to indace him to withdraw and connect himself with a church that wus true to its constitution and its history. ‘A DIFFICULT TASK. After referring toa number of scholarly au- thorities Dr. Briggs continued: These cita- tions might be continued to un enormous ex- tent. It would not take ascholar long to decide between the authority of the members of the general assembly at Portland and the authority of these fathers, reformers. Puritans and mod- ern divines; who have given such emphatic statements of their opinion. “The court will see the great difficulty of the task now imposed upon me in view of this de- liverance of the general assembly. And yet I do no hesitate to undertake it in the fear of God and with a firm conviction that I can show you that the general assembly at Portiand by | this deliverance violated the constitution of our | church and promulgated doctrine which is not authorized by Scripture of ovr standards.” Dr. Briggs, in bis defense, absolutely denies | that his utterances are in conflict with the standards of the church and makes a most pow- erful argument in support of his position. Some interesting extracts from his defense are given below: NEW QUESTIONS IX RELIGION. “There are many new questions in religion, doctrine and morals which the church has not defined and where the guidance of Holy Scrip- ture is as yet not altogether clear, about which men in our time differ widely, differ seriously, differ in some cases in passion and bitterness. But these questions cannot lawfully come under the forms of ecclesiastical process in our courts because our constitution has not yet determined them. I: may be that the Presbyte- Fian Church will have to define some of these questions, and it may be necessary t divide the denominations of Christians now existing and to organize new denom- inations distinguished by their attitudes toward these questions. But the Presby- terian Church cannot by a majority vote in presbytery, synod or geueral assembly deter- tine any such questions except in the forms of our constitution, bys revision of the confession | after full deliberation, by the vote of two-thirds | of the presbyteries. Theinaugural address may | contain ten or twenty dangerous errors in the | epinion of some of you, but that is not the — which as jurors you have to decide, f such dangerous errors are not in irrecon- cilable contlict with essential and necessary articles of the Westminster | confession, You have no constitutional right to | deal with ther: in this presbytery in the forms of ecclesiastical process. The only thing you can do lawfully is to overture the| general assembly to mena the con- fession of faih so as to exclude! the dangerous opinions of Dr. Briggs. If you | should succeed in such revision and bring about such a decision in a legal manner he would use his right of protest and then retire from the presbytery and not wait for a judicial decision of his case. ‘This principle is of vast importance. But it ft has been entirely disregarded by the prosecu- tion in the amended charges and in their argu- ment upon them. Even if it be true that my teuchings contravene the seven doctrines of the confession specified fm the amended charges, of not more than one of them could it be said that they are dange: ous errors in the sense that they contravene essential doctrines of our standards.” THE REASON. “Christian philosophy has made rapid strides forward since the Westminster confession was framed, The Cambridge Platonists, many of | whom were pupils of the Westminster divines.led the way in this great movement. The result has been that the human reason has gained a place in Christian theology that it could not have had before. How can we as Christian scholars go back to the psychology and metaphysics of the Westminster divines? ‘ho will venture to ignore the history of modern philosophy, or the achieve- ments that have been made in the field of the- elogy in the long conflict with deism, rationalism and agnosticism? The con- science has assumed a vastly higher in Christian ethics. The meta- hysical categories have been more correctly jefined and explained. ‘The religious feeling has emerred as an original endowment of man which lies at the roots of his religious nature. ‘The witness of the Christian consciousness is of fmmense consequence to Chris‘ian theology. "The reason is acknowledged to be the great- et endowment God has given to man. jt is the holy of holies of human nature, the presence chamber of God within the soul, into which the Divine Spirit enters when He would influence the man, and fm which our Savior dwells when He would gweke the man altogether His own. i shall sdmit that the Westminster directed | land they said what has never been true in fact in the history of the an unscriptural, unconstitutional, disloval ef- the Holy Spirit, they were not sent down from heaven by angel hands, they were not committed to the care of perfect men, they | as nothing to the interest of the church, which this committee represented. By refusing the right of appeal to the prose- were not kept by a succession of perfect | cution they would permit the presbytery of priests from that moment until tho present time. If these had been the facts in the case, we might have had a Bible infal- lible in every particular. But none of these | things are true. God gave His Hoiy Word to men in an entirely different way. He | used the human reason and all tho faculties of imperfect human nature. He used the voice and hands of imperfect men. Heallowed the sacred writings to be edited and re-edited, arranged and re- and rearranged again by imper- fect scribes. It is umprobable that such | imperfect instrumentalities should attain ject results. It was improbable tha‘ je men should produce a series of wri infallible mevery respect. It was sufficient that divine inspiration and the guidance of the Holy Spirit should make their writ- ings an infallible rule of faith and Practice, and that the divine energy should jush the human and the fallible into the 1 forms, into the unessential and unneces- Sary matters, into the human setting of the divine ideals. WIGHER CRITICISM. “It is a ludicrous feature of the present situa tion that biblical scholars are defending the | translations of which they have no need, and experts on textual criticism are acknowledging that they find no inerrant manuscripts, the higher critics are searching the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures through and through to learn the exact truth and facts about the origin and ible; while men who can character of the 3, hardly spell cut their Hebrew and Greek Bibles, who are as innocent of textual criticism as a child unborn, and who show and writing that they know not the meaning of the words higher criticism—that such men are prating about thd lity of original autographs and the in- Violability of traditional theories. We may safely say that divine authority is not stereotyped in by their speech infalii original autographs so hidden from the eyes of men that they can less easily be discovered than the north pole or the den of Eden. The fountain of authority is in the great heart of the gospel, the message of redemption which the Bible tells in every language into which it may be translated, and which the Holy Spirit ever accompanies with His quickening presence. “A study of the conf.ssion makesit clear that it knows nothing of the modern doctrine of the inerrancy of the original autographs of Holy Scripture. When the general assembly assumed to say by a ma- fority voto, that Our church bolls that ith- they said what is not true in fact the inspired Word as it came from God i out error,” at the present time unless their own majori Yote determines what our church hol Presbyterian Church, if cumstances seem to indi ey meant, what cit je that they meant, to affirm that the original autographs were without error. PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH. “The doctrine of progressive sanctification | is in accordance with the laws that God has es- tablished in the ethical constitution of man. ‘The conscience speaks the categorical imper- | ative in the first dawn of the moral conscions- ness. and it pronounces its decision in the light of the training that men receive in their suc- cessive stages of advancement in morals. The church and the Bible give their potent aid to the conscience in the ethical elevation of humanity. It is always, everywhere and im every variety of form and — educa- tion” a training. Shall all this ethi- cal training cease at death, all the varied stages of progressin the different periods of life, of culture, of racial and national advancement, be reduced to a common level and ‘made of none effect, by a mighty transformation that will deal with the race, father and child, mother and babe, master and scholar, self-sacrificing missionary and pagan convert, the devoted evangelist and the thief and murderer turning in his last hour to Christ from the shadow of the gallows—all as one undistinguishable mass? Such a doctrine strikes a deadly blow at the moral nature of man, the ethical constitution of society, the historic training of our race and the moral government of God “The doctrine of progressive sanctification after death harmonizes Christian faith with Christian ethics, and both of these with the ethics of humanity and the ethics of God. It enables ux to comprehend the whole life of man, the whole his- tory of our race from its first creation until the day of doom, and all the acts of God in creation and providence, under one grand conception, the divine sanctification of man.” epee THE CASE OPENED. How the Argument on the Briggs Appeal . Was Begun. DR. BIRCH'S REASC’ AGAINST BEING PLACED TWICE IN JEOPARDY OF WIS ECCLESIASTICAL LIFE. [From yesterday's Assembly edition.) Dr. Birch, chairman of the prosecuting com- | mittee, then rove and read an argument on the side of entertaining the appeal. ‘The appellant, he said, was the original party declared by the assembly of 1392 to be the com- mittee of wprosecution for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America against the Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D. He referred to the appeal of Paul and Barna- bas to the apostolic council at Antioch asa somewhat parallel case. Tho decree of the generat assembly ordered the presbytery of New York to try the caso on its merits and gave it liberty to amend the indict- ment. The decree of the apostolic council was obeyed by the gentile Christians. The decree of the assembly of 1892 was not obeyed by the presbytery, as it refused to ex- press on its records its approval or disapproval of the defendant's utterances. The presbytery bad acquitted the defendant on the ground that such statements ashe had made did not transcend the liberty allowed by the Presby- terian Church to scholarship and opinion. The final judgment of the inferior court was fort to reach peace by a compromise with and a toleration of error. THE STANDING OF THE COMMITTEE. This court needed no additional information with reference to the combined effort to ques- tion the standing of the committee of proseeu- tion in spite of the determination of the que: tion of the authorities of the church, and | especially by the assembly of 1892. ‘The que tion arises why pass by the synod? The committee had but » single remark. | In a pamphiet copyrighted by the appellee he told the truth when he said the presumption of innocence was always with the defendant. ‘The arsembly in 1892 had, after listening to Dr. Briggs, decided that’ thia course of ap- peal was well taken. He referred to the fact that in the assembly was vested the final de- cisions of matiers of doctrine. MAKING LIGHT OF THE ERRORS. ‘The form in which the final judgment of the presbytery was returned gave the opinion that alleged errors of Dr. Briggs were unimportant and that they related to matters not essen! ‘That was the main reason why this appeal should be entertained. Dr. Birch then gave a summary of the errors committed by Dr. Briggs according to the view of the prosecution, maintaining that they affected vital principies of faith. FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS. It was, he said, a series of errors covering the | fundamental principles of faith, The question was purely doctrinal and therefore of universal importance to Presbyterians. It required the decision of the highest court of the church. FOR URGING THE APPEAL | BEFORE THE ASSEMDLY—DR. BRIGGS PROTESTS | New York, ex-cathedra, to determine grave ques- tions of doctrine for ‘the whole church. They were to settle these questions, not for them- selves alone,but for all American Presbyterians, both now and for some years to come. H said the commitiee hud sought earnestly to do their duty, They might have escaped much unpleasant criticism by abandoning the case, but they would have done wrong to the church. ‘The appellant as the spokesman of hundreds of thousands of Presbyterians, in the name of law and order, in the name of all that was sacred in the Presbyterian Church, besonght this venerable court to bless the church and | the world, to exercise its authority in a crisis so momentous as to make every plea for a delay of judgment entirely out of order. ‘He appealed to them tosave the church from what Dr. Herrick Johnson described as a peril of broadness that would empty our souls of conviction and our lives of victory. Dr. Birch finished at ten minutes past three, = used only half hour of the hour allotted DR. BRIGGS BEGINS HIS ARGUMENT. Dr. Briggs theu came forward and took his place on the little platform where Dr. Birch had stood. He said he appeared to resist the entertain- ment of the appeal, ‘The Book of Discipline, he said, made him the appellee. It was incum= bent upon him to defend the action of the New York presbytery. He was not allowed to em- ploy counsel. He was privileged only to ask some member of the judicatory to represent him. Had he been permitted to employ counsel he would have done so, or if he could have engaged some member of the judicatory in time for that person to master all the details of the case he would have dsne so. He said that he appeared under great disadvantages, as he might suffer on account of personal hostility, as it was diffi- cult for them to separate Dr. Briggs, the appel- lee, from Dr. Briggs, the attorney. He asked them to hear bim not as Dr. Briggs, but as counsel for Dr. Briggs. NOT THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. ‘The consideration of the merits of the appeal, he said, was uot lawful until ithad been decided to entertain the appeal. He regretted that the appellant disobeyed this rule of practice. ‘Tho grounds of the appeal had been read, but not that the court might consider their morits at this time. He made an earnest appeal to them as his judges, to distinguish now be- tween the form and the matter. They had now to consider only the form of the appeal. They had to determine the preliminary questions, viz: whether the appeal was from ‘&. proper final judgment; whether the appellants were proper parties, and whether the assembly could | take jurisdiction of the case. If they decided on any of these questions that the appeal was not proper they had nothing to do whatever with the merits of the case. ‘The first question was how far is the appeal againsta final judgment. The Book of Disci- pline said appeals must be from final judg- ments, The title of the appeal read “from the decision and final judgment” of the presby- tery of New York. ‘It appeared to be some- thing more than appeal from a_ final judg- went and therefore was invalid. In the body of the appeal the language was “from the afore- said action, decision and final judgment.” So far as it was an appeal from ‘anything more than a “final jadgment” it was unlawful If the preabytory of New York deemed it wiee to combine with iis final judgment other decis- ions and advice, such decisions and advice could not be regarded as a part of the final judgment, and therefore was not subject to appeal. The only judgment was acquittal. Tt wus manifest that much of the appeal was from those actions and utterances of the pres- bytery, from which no appeal could be taken. IRRELEVANT MATTER. Much, therefore, in the appeal was irrelevant, and shonld not be considered at all. ‘The reser- vation of approval was nota part of the final Judgment. Tt could not be appealed from, but only complained of. The counsel, | ad- vice and exhortation in the utterances of the New York presbytery might be right or wrong, but it formed no part of the judgment. Possibly the presbytery committed error in all these decisions and councils. It was not for him to go into merit of that question. Assuming that they were full of error they had nothing to do with the question brought here. NoT THE LEGAL VERDICT. The decision of the presbytery, he said, had been announced by the moderator when the vote was taken as an acquittal, This was the vote of December 30. The appeal seemed to be taken from the irrelevant matters which hai been drawn up by a committee of the presbytery and adopted January 9% That was not the vote of the presbytery ncquitting, Dr. Briggs. “The app lants took their appeal from action not contem- plated in the vote of December 90. If the de- fendant waived this technical objection how could he be assured that he would be protected by the assembly in his other rights? Why should the appellee waive his rights when the appelianta were _secking to deprive him of his ecclesiastical life. ‘They could not legally entertain the appeal until all this irrelevant matter was removed from the appeal. Br. Briggs’ second line of argument was that it was uilawful for a party claiming to be a public prosecutor to appeal against a verdict of acquittal. je referred to the definition of the heresy in the Book of Discipline as errors that strike at the vitals of religion, and are industriously ci culated. He discussed the nature of heresy an offense, calling attention to its gravity in the eyes of churchmen in all times, He referred to the severe punishments formerly inflicted on heretics. In this country an ecclesinstic judg- ment could not deprive a man of his propert his limbs or his hfe. Hero, however, church went as far ay it could’ and deprived man of his ecclesiastic life. ASECOND TIME IN JEOPARDY. It was necessary for the court to consider whether it was lawful to put a man a second time in jeopardy of his ecclesiastic life. A church in the eye of the law was like # social clab with control only over those who yolun- tarily submitted to the control. It had been said that a Presbyterian minister who differs from his brethren is honorably bound to retire from the church. Thismizht seem plausible,but it was a superticial statement, It was true of civil government that majorities are not always to be trusted. The Presbyterian Church, like other churches, had » system of checks on majorities, A Presbyterian minister at bis ordination bowed his head in subjection to his brethren, bat it was only instrictiy defined Iimits—when they were acting as acourtand acting in ac- cordance with Presbyterian principles. The vow of obligation was limited by the obliga- tions of the church itself. If thev transcended legal limits then decisions did not bind ministers ef the church, Every minister had a ght to these constitutional protections, Any effort by a majority to convict him of heresy on utterances that were extra confessional would be unconstitutional. If such were not the rule reforms would be impossible. When has the church been revised or reformed by majorities of the church? In the past, when God has raised up men to lead a reform, majorities have been always against him. A MINISTER'S DOUBLE CALL. A minister of the Presbyterian Church, it was assumed, had a double call, a divine call from Jesus Christ Himself and a human call at his ordination. A minister might renounce his church or might be dismissed to another de- nomination, provided he is not on trial. If, however, charges are against him, he could not take either of these courses without an act of violence. He would be obliged to abide by the Presbyterian Church until he was deposed at the end of his trial. Now it was proposed to ask this assem- bly to reopen the case closed by the presbytery limited to aggrieved parties. All precedents | °f,the proceedings. in the courts, civil and ecclesiastic, were that appeals should be made by aggrieved parties. ‘The grievance must be very great to justify the reopening of the case of a minister who bas been acquitted of a charge of heresy. The case against the de- fendant did not come under those private offences, where either party had the right of appeal. ''The prosecutor was a public pros- ecutor, and there was no question of the griev- ance of an individual. The private prose- cutor was, under the church law, subject to the penalty of a censure if he failed in the prosecution. Therefore he was given the right of appeal. Dr. Briggs analyzed at considerable length the principles of the civil law as well as the ecclesiastic law. which, he said, always lingered. behind the civil laws. ‘These appellants had no right, he said, to claim the grievance of a private prosecutor and at the same time the immunity of a public pros- ecutor which would shield them from an action for slander. ‘The prosecution in this case has been con- ducted by a committee of presbytery, claiming to be a committee of prosecution acting for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Such a prosecutor had no right of appeal. The general assombly could not enter- tain the appeal without violating all law, all precedent and the statutes of the church. They would do the appellee a wrong that the courts would not hesitate to redress, XO PERSONAL GRIEVANCE. This prosecuting committee, he asserted had no personal grievance. They might be disap- pointed because they had not secured a verdict of conviction. They were not appointed to convict, but only to prepare the case subject to he decision of the presbytery, and when tho presbytery had given its decision the duty of the committee wae done. To appeal against the presbytery that appointed them laid them open to the imputation of personal hostility such as was unnatural and wrong ina public proseentor. ‘The grounds of appeal that had been given, though they might have been valid ina case between private parties, were not valid in public prosecution against a verdict of acq tal. Itis claimed by some that the Presbyte- rian Church of the United States of America is aggrieved. But who is to say this, the prosecu- tion? ‘The appellants seem to think that they are suffering grievance vicariously? Not, how- ever,for the presbytery of New York or for the synod. Not for the general assembly, for the assembly did not appoint them. For whom thenare they suffering vicariously? They way the Presbyterian’ Church of the United States of America, doubtless mean- ing the party of’ the — church that is pushing them on in this matter, and who they think are in the majority. The case of Dr. Briggs bas been tried in a lawful court of the chureh, and he has been acquitted. In the case of a man’s acquittal of homicide in a civil court it might be held that the commonwealth was agreed, and that the acquittal tended te en- courage crime, but even if a great many peoplo believed that there could be no appeal. PUBLIC OPINIOX. There may bea party in the church whose judgment has been warped by partisan news- pers that may feel aggrieved by the acquit- tal of Dr. Briggs. but no law, cir or ecclesi- astical, recognizes the existence of such a floating public opinion as justification for putting him in jeopardy s second time. Dr. Briggs declared again, with emphasis, that tho acquittal by the presbytery under every known law ended the case and protested against the red aed of compelling him again to stand tr It wasacommon mistake, he said, in which the sppellens had fallen that the Presbyterian Church was responsible for all the doctrines of its ministers. ‘bis was wrong. The church wus responsible only for its constitution. If it wore lawful to appeal every case of doc- trine or law to the general assembly, it would compel the general assembly to pass upon every question raised. ‘They would have to pass upon questions now regarded by every one as matters of private opinion. If this appeal were granted it would result in an unending se- ies of heresy trials. It would be no rebellion if the minority of the church continued the struggle against unrighteousness and wrong, hoping for better times, He said that they might choose either to leave the church or pursue the wiser course and battle for the right within the Presbyterian Church. It was never designed that ‘heresy trial would be used as the means for securing decisions on questions of doctrine. The pabiic prosecutors were pushing the Presbyterian Church into a danger- ous position. They were endeavoring to get new definitions of dogma through a heresy trial instead of following the course pre- scribed by the Book of Government. He suggested that by securing a revision in the usual way those who did not | agree with the doctrines defined would be ex- cluded from the church without the scandal of a heresy trial. THE COURT ADJOURNS. At ten minutes to five the moderator an- nounced that Dr. Briggs would continue his ar- gument in the morning. A number pf notices were given and the as- sembly adjourned until 9:30 o'clock to-morrow. ee ADJOURN THE wom After Adopting a Series of Earnest Resolu- tions in Regard to Missionary Work. As stated in yesterday's Srar the meetings of the women of the Presbyterian Church in con- nection with the general assembly adjourned yesterday afternoon. Before the close the committee on resolutions reported the following, which were unanimously adopted: Resolved, That we recognize with devout gratitude the gift of God to this work in the ability and devotion of the honored and be- | loved officers of the woman's executive com- mittee, and would express to them our grateful and loving appreciation of their devoted and successful labors. Resolved, That we tender our missionary teachers, who by their presence and inspiring words have 80 greatly added to the interest of these meetings, our loving thanks and the earn- est assurance of more heartfelt service and more constant prayer for the exceptional classes whom they have presented to our con- sideration. Resolved, That we commend and indorse the recent action of the woman's executive com- mittee confirmed by the board of bome mis- sions, in relinquishing government aid as ap- plied’ to contract schools among the Indians, declining such help for the day schools during this year and at the close of it severing the connection entirely; and be it further Resolved, That ‘this step, which places Presbyterian women consistently on the right side of the question, should be followed by Vigorous efforts to arouse public opinion to the evils of sectarian appropriations, Resolved, That inasmuch as the prevailing political and religious influence in Utah is still centered in the Mormon Church, the woman executive committee protest against her adop- tion into our great confederation of states. We recognize the power of our Christian teachers in molding the convictions of the young men and women now coming upon the stage of active influence there, that a their transformed lives com force in these fair valleys it can then, and not till then, be trusted toa position in the sister- hood of states. ‘This occasion and these resolutions would seem, indeed, most incomplete were not the name of our cherished leader, our great hearted leader, our great friend, Dr. Kendail, once more sounded forth in toues freighted with loyal pride and tender memory. Above all others he was the originator of this grand scheme for woman's organization, which should, from its Very outset, take within its grasp our whole country, from east to west, from north to south. In the same spirit of love and perseverance let Us press on till our whole land shall be Im- manuel’s land. Lastly. The most difficult, and at the same more potent | ‘Third. We cannot overlook the social fea- tures of this memorable work. We would gratefully acknowledge the courtesy of Presi- dent and Mrs. Cleveland in their invitation to the White House, the considerate regard of Mrs. Brice, which ‘included usin her elegant reception, and the thoughtful kindness of our own Mrs. Kelley, who provided for us the lees formal but not less beautiful luncheon. ‘The king bade us to thin royal feast, where we have found luxury and beauty and joy. We have partaken of refreshment and nourishment and stimulus. As we have sat here we have heard muny times a voice saying: “Send portions, send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared.” We go away with glad, humble hearts, and with full bands to give—to aim to give—with more of self-abne- gation and truer fidelity to hungering, thirsty and perishing souls the bread and water and Fine of human life, the simple gospel of Jesus ——— CUSTOM HOUSE INVESTIGATION. ‘The Specific Charges Against the New York Ofictals. \ In reply toa communication from the special commissioners appointed to investigate the New York custom house requesting information “touching the statements and charges contained in the issue of the Dry Goods Chronicle of April 13, 1898,” the editor of that journal has submitted the following list of specific charges against the custom house officials: 1. That extensive undervaluations were charged in 1891 against J. R. Simon & Co., im- Porters of Japanese silks. 2. That J. R. Simon & Co. paid $10,000 in ad- ditional duties and penalties. 3. That proof of the undervaluation estab- lished the connivance of Examiner Wiswall, who passed the invoices as correct, 4. That charges against Examiner Wiswall, based upon this proof, were made by Appraiser Cooper to Secretary Foster. 5. The charges were ostensibly investigated by Special Treasury Agent James MoCoy, who made a secret report to the Secretary of the Treasury to the effect that they were not sub- stantiated. 6. ‘That these charges were suppressed and nullified by the intervention of the appraiser's superior officer in the Treasury Department at Washington by means of pretended investiga tion by the special agent and the report based thereon, which report suppressed and per- verted the facts, thereby inducing the Secre- tary of the Treasury to exonerate Examiner Wiswall despite the unshakable fact that J. R. Simon & Co. bas been compelled to pay heavy penalties. 7. That thereafter Assistant Secretary Spauld- ing and Supervising Special Agent Tingle were made fully cognizant of the facts by a personal interview with Appraiser Cooper. 8. That Messrs. Spaulding and Tingle made a bargain with the silk association whereby Ex- aminer Wiswail was relieved from the duty of examining silks and transfétred to another and more responsible place. Mr. Richardson can testify that Messrs. Spaulding and Tingle agreed to have Wiswall put winere he would not interfere with the silk association or be of annoyance to it, provided he (Iitchardson) would drop his charges against iswall, 9. Presient of the Board of General Apprais- ers George C. Tichenot, knowing the charges against Examiner Wiswall and facts sup- porting them, recommended to Assistant Seo- Tetary Spaulding that Wiswall be placed in charge of the reclassification of invoicesof silk goods,al- leged by the importers to be hat trimmings, on which they demanded refunds from the gov- ernment. This work, which enabled Wiswall to wield great influence on the final decisions, wax intrusted to him in spite of the fact that he had been found guilty of gross misconduct as an examiner, and in spite of the fact that the attorneys for 90 per cent of the importers had agreed to leave the reclassification to Appraiser Cooper. His (Wiswall’s) conduct in his new place was such as to evokestrong criticism from is superiors. 10. That General Appraisers Han, Ticbenor and Jewell were the only checks upon Wiswall's ible dishonesty in his new position is shown yy the department letters of September 22, 1891, designating them specially to act upon the classification of protested invoices. it letter was of the same date as one ordering that Wiswall should be “put in charge of the reclassification of invoices of hat trimmings.” Evidence that these general appraisers were friendly to Wiswall and oppoxed to Mr. Corbett is said to exist in the knowledge of Appraiser Cooper, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Richardson. That Mersrs. Spaulding and Tingle were responsible for the order in regard to Wiswall may be learned from the same witnesses. 11. That Wiswall resigned on March 1, his resignation to tuke effect on April 1, he having drawn his salary without rendering any equiva- lent from the middle of January, when the re- funds on bat trimmings were anapended by the Treasury Department, In March, while on leave of absence, he announced that he had formed a partnership with H. D. Tichenor, the son of the general appraiser. ‘That partuer- ship is unquestioned. t General Appraiser Tichenor, sitting as a judge, adjudicates upon cases in which his Son appears as counsel in association with ex- Examiner Wiswall, whom, as an official charged by his superiors with corruption, Col. Tichenor had befriended and protected. 1: t the special agents pervert their pow- ers to discredit and impede responsible ofticinls by means of secret, perverted and false reports made to officials at Washington, instead of local officials, as required ,by the spirit of their in- structior The editor follows each specific charge with the names of witnesses who can be called upon to substantiate it, and concludes his communi- ention as follows: I wouid also suggest an inves- tigation into the cause of the friction between the appraisers’ and the general appraisers’ de- partments. ‘This has become notorious and must naturally interfere with the proper en- forcement of the laws and the rights of mor- chante. Upon this subject the report of the commis- sion appointed by Secretary Foster to, tnvesti- gate the appraisers’ store may shed light. One copy is in the Treasury Department and an- other is in the keeping of Secretary Geo. Wilson of the chamber of commerce, Cornelius Bliss and Charles Stewart Smith, as well as other merchants, are well informed upon the whole subject, ——+e+—___ EX-MINISTER STEVENS’ ADDRES! An Appeal to Be Issued for Annexation of Hawall. Ex-Minister John L. Stevens has prepared an address to the Americun people in defense of his conduct of affairs on these islands, accord- ing to the Honolulu correspondence of the New York World. He prepared the address with the intention of giving it out for publica- tion im the United States immediately upon his arrival in San Francisco on May $1. Mr. Stevens tells the story of the dethrone- ment of Liliuokalani, the landing of the men from the Boston and the establishment of the | provisional government. He accuses the mon- archy of flagrant corruption, and asserts that the queen held improper relations with her chief executive, Wilson. ‘The sentiment on the islands, Mr. Stevens claims, is largely American and for annexation by the United States, for which he makes an earnest plea. Policy Dealer in Norfolk Fined. Capt. Mushback of Alexandria and Detective Miller of Washington some time ago raided a policy shop at Norfolk run by George Taylor. It was alleged that the numbers drawn from the wheel were telegraphed to Washington and other northern cities and that this placo was the fountain head of the policy business in this day the trial camo up and last country. Yest night ‘the jury, after being out several hours, Drought ina verdict of guilty, fixing Taylor's punishmen' forty days in jail and $500 fine, New Castle Washi John Randolph. 28 Corn'ng—Thos Dubugue— Towa—Wi lis G. Craiy, Towa City—Jo Sioux City—Wm. ton ustralia, ‘Synod of Baltimore, Baltimore—J. T. Sinith, Baltimore. dames T, Lettivtten, Baitimore. < Witmer, Baltimore. Purnell, Frederick City, Litchfield. "M. Osmond, Philadelphia, Fredonia. Howk, Pocomoke City, Md.. the Litehteld Bush” Witminaton, Del.. Abt E. Gilles (ait. ), Cols jon city —Sovepls TI . Neal, Bloviusd % y.'F. Partene Wood Ninzps, China, Wood's nod of California. 8; Los Anceles—W" 3. Chichester, Los Angeles, Wormley. ‘A.C. Junkin, Westminister, Wormley. Rov. J. I. Hopkins, Santa Anna, EDbitt. entura, Fredon‘a. Benici i 5 F. W. Woolsey, Fulton, Buckingham. Oakland~Hobort F. Coyle, Oakland. Buckingham. ‘W. H. Hamilton, East Oakland, Buckingham. Sacramento—[ M stevenson, Sacramento, 1218 Ct. av. ‘B. F. Butterfield, Colusa. SMawad Kerr, han Francis. Seatomore ward Kerr, cinco. San Joxs—Jan. M. Sewell, Santa Clara, Strathmore, David Jacks, Monterey, Ebuite Stockton-—Alfred H. Croco, Sonora, 717 13th st, Judge John K. Low, Merrede, Cochran. ‘Synod of Catawba. OP elante: Sisto keeniaieie . Stevens, ro', Ny C. D. J. Sanders, Charlotte, X. C., 632 2d st. C,H. Caldwell, Concord, N.C. Soitmer M. Carter, Martinerifiey 1 james M. Carter, Martinsville, Yadkin—J. G. Murray, Moorsviile, 1629 0 st. BH. Alexander, Statesville, N- C., 1629 Ost Synod of Colorado. Boulder—Frederick R. Wotring, Rawlins, Wro, ‘Thomas i Seockton, Lauemnont, Col, Oxford, Denver John Go, Denver. B17 Téth st. George H. Sanford, Denver, 1014 11th st. Gynaisgn charles Bucler, Gunnison, Jolin Maurer. Lake City, Oxford. Pueblo—T. C. Kirkwood, Col. Springs, 917 16th st. George Be LaVerruo, Col, Svrinis, O17 16th at jynod of India.” . Kolhapur—G. ler, Harrisburg. Pa. 909 13th st. 3. J. Lucas, Hariisbure, 2 Mat Tabore—Rev. Henry C. Velte. 1113 15th at., "Ameiiaco. 111313th 418 Let, Joseph Garrizus, Trenton. Windsoi Bioomincten Jolin W. Pugh, Philo. Harafitom. George W. Bewent, 18 Grant place. a. ioomineton, Flsmere, tral ‘O20 15th et. re, Lake Forest, Cochran, |. VauVranken, Chica Royal E. Barber, Jollet, . Cole, Hyde Park, Chi Thomes Kane, Chicago, Cochraa. inet aes Georwe Ruthertord. Talon, 924 N.Y. ave, Rock River—James W. Skinher, Morrison, O15 21st st. ‘Mitche!t, Brie, O10 J4th. Schayler—Fawin J. Rice, Hi ‘Janes H. Wile Springfeld—David'J. 5: ‘Albert Walker, Petersburz. Hamilton, Cratontevitte dT Wiitstesn, Theta Town, 1201 Ket ravfonisvile—J. Willisinson, Thorn Town, J.F Myers, Ladoga, 910 1st Fort Wayne John M. Bozes, Fort Wayne, 91614th, F. W. Antrup, Fort Wayne, 1807 Tat. EP. Whaiion, Cincinnatt, Ebbitt, Rev. 8.8. Aikiuan, Greenfield, 1201 K st, AM. Covert, Franklin, Lincoln, L. P. Chapin, Greencas ‘0. Lattin y : Pein, 1307 10th et, New Albany —Joseph H. Barnard , ‘Sinith W. Storey, Vernon. 1444 Corcoran. Vinconnes—A. W. Freeman, Petersburg, Hamilton, wena is EEA, rasan water— alte " 3. G. Donnell, Kingston. 1325 M st. Synod of Indian Territory. Cherokee—F van B. Evans, Muldrow, 10th and H ste Chamb-riain, Vinita. 1325 M st. Choctaw—8. K. Ream, Fort Sinith, Ark, 1119 Ket. Charles W_ Burkes. Lehigh, 12:35 N.Y. ave. Muskorse—Dorsey Fife, Econtuchka, W. C-Roig, Okmulgee, 1023 Vermont are. Oklaboma—Wim. T. King, Guthrie. D.C. Thompson, Edinund, 1829 Met, Synod of Iowa. Cedar Rapids—Wm_ J. Howlman, springville, Elsmere. J.S. Stanley, Garrison, Ardmore. Council Blufis—E. Dickinson, Audubon, 1710 15th st. #1. Woodbury: Council Bluffs. Ewing, Corning, Lincoln. Robt. A. Willis, Des Moines—H. G. 5 K wt G. Beyer, Littleton, Ebbite, Herriam, Hopkinton. lange Sy. Boone, 1235. ¥. ave, 5th'st. jeae. ‘Wm. Fulton, Keokuk, Ebbitt. —Geo.'C. Lan! A. G. Riley, Jeffersou, Evans, ie Yaa Grove ML P.O, Tama ce. nod of Kansas. Emroria—S. M. Davis, Newton. LH. Shane, Wichita, Lincoln. ¢. GC. Long, Emporis, Metrovoliten, J. Patten, © ttonwood Falls, 1300 Vermont ave, Highiand—Wm. McHare, yids, Hamilton: ut We Fart By Heh 8 mi = we rwin, Hutchins om, Hamilton, wn. Great Bend. tad Teh wt Kerr, Prine-ton, (207 N at, incoln. S, dezomne, Pontiac face, Piyinouth, Strathmore, n, Derroit SUM. Cutene: ‘Frank G. ¢. Halle Albion. Art 3M. thrown: Nevauneee tte, 00 1th st Monroe Win. i Babine ‘Fecttimeb 1410 Tat Patoskey “Joh Kedpath, Bose Palle 35 Enoch K> Robinson, Borne Saginaw—Chas. D. Ellis, eli Prof. J. W. Ewing, Altna, 1300 Mt at- Donuth_w permed of Minnesotn, uth —W. B.Greenshields, New Duluth, Strathmore. John Wilson, Duluth, Oxford Ut De Coster, Litchfield, 1104 E.Cap.st. John Cops Win. P. Jewett, Winoria—Alien’ City—Jobn Marquis, Sed Maxwell, Ca Palmyra—F. W. Fisher, Low 335 s. Meredith. Macon, 15 Msi seierst 3 BT, Shoncez. St ban ran. White Ryser Thow (Oba Brinkley, Ark.,1416 I 5 fonticel o, Ark., ” ‘Synod of Nebrwakae | aha —Ds COA. Starr, Fljzabeth—Robert H. rinantows, Ek William ervey City Verne Hamiton. George H. Garreitso faimiltom Jas %. Bidaetl, ni Bellma. 909. fonmouth— Cl rae. 1 mn, id be Cape ot. Charles 8. 7044, Port Henry. mmung—Albert Livermore, Spencer, 1239 Mass. ave. R. Booth, New, York, Ebbitt House. orth River Rondout, f, Pittsford, 1035 Vt ave. Hochester, Arington. own, 1752 N street, Town, 1932 3 Arkport, 824 14th street. ‘oy, 10th and bri Little Fall's, Ristreet Uwville, 1300 Vermont avenue, Wert beste Soka He Tasell Bre ‘ ge eat ev — weter, Hauilton Et xieeu Donte Facey” asaton Henry Parse: fat rnin, Cochras. Samuel H- Wilton, White Plains, Hamiltom, Synod of North Dakota. Hugh McDonald, Hi: Synod of Obie. well, Athens, Ebbitt, dond, Ebbitt fagh W Guthrie, Chillicothe, 506 A A. W. Seymour. Bainbridie, 506 — Aon iam 2 elsiae eewiins Theses MeDona ones a Wiliom Ac Enasie: Cinco Thomas J. Duncan, Giendate, 1228 15th: Cleveland Jon. N. MoGifford. Ashtabale, BOD" D. Wiliiavnson, Cleveland, Rbbith ECE Sones, Seuilie, itchbela: Columbus Thos H Kab, Wester Willisn T. Beli, Fox. He Sighes, Jacksonburs 1416 Rat. ‘James Park. Glens. 2 theta Lima—J. B. Mitchel Inaac Cusac, McComb, 917 10th Mahoninz—David F. Dickson, East Jax. Martin, Kogers’ Post Othoe, 917 We Mari . Thomas, Marion, Fredonia. Mguimec”Jatnes A, McG R. Maclaren. Toledo, u—D. 8. Tappan, Gray. I poledo, Ebbiet, Portamouth, Ebbite mpbell, Martin's Ferry. . Barnesville, Oxford, tterson. John M. Lauehls Stenbenville—Sau vel Pat . Homer Sheeley. Irondale, Lincoln 3. K. Donaldson, Richmond, Buckineham, vill-. Buckineham. jn, Breston, O16 14th oh , Shelby, #16 4th et. . Forney, Mansheld. Arno. Buchanan, Savanns Zanesville Francis H.W Stick, Roseburg, Limooin at's Pasa, 14:2 at i David Wills, Get raat WF. Myers, West Clarion—Hagh F 4 3 ta iain. Altoona, 1412 La Georze M Bris san rg. Worthincton, 916 14th et, wanna-F. won Ky Wn. H. Swift, Hones aps, Ragen wood, W. Va. oD, Baker, Pilladelyiia, 12s te Chas. A. Dickay, Philadelttiias Ren der G. MeAuley, Phiiatal Wells. AsteLBeld. itlade:phia, Ebbite. in, Ebbitt, 1 Holmesbare. ehuy uitl. Predoni . Germantown, 1316 1th ste” rd, Germantow . Poitetewn. 1411 Hint me y . Pitsburg, Fredont Predon ity, 1300 . Pittsburg, Fredonia. sie Herrou, Pittsbure, ¢b Falmer, Pittsbure. Fredonia, c. Dunn. Pitistarse ia. red B. King: Clay Ashlant. Liberia, Africa $3, 1550 Sat wt, jasc . Simnew P. Evans Oxtord, 431 Mitaymakér, New Alexandria, Nor- tanooga. Oxford. cua, 1531 Vermout ave. ore, Maryville. ‘0. White. Knoxville, Synod of Texas. Trinity—Monteomery May, Dall Willis sinele, lenrose, 1412 15th st. In connection with the meeting of the gen- eral assembly there will also be meetings con- @ucted by the Women's Foreign and Home Missionary Societies, which are suxiliary to the boards of foreign and home missions, These meetings will be held in the Church of the Covenant. The women’s executive com- mittee of home missions will bold the first ‘meeting on Friday morning at 9:30, ‘Represen- tatives of six boards of foreign missions are ex~ Pected, and the first meetings of these boards ‘will be held Monday afternoon at 2 o'clock. THE DELPGATRS COMING. ‘The list of delegates as reported to the chair- LE Nesciel, on teavenipes eee a a, with: rr ters, is as follows: ~ Ex-Rep. D. ®. 3 ne Ee SE ie 35, 5% Brownell Nev Work. the Arno. coginitiee New Tork, tie inns, Toman enseutive 5 Petes X, J. ymamber of aa- ALA ita he Arma ‘of advisory commit- Clove ns ,clnve! nd, Ohio, view pres. of [yman's executive committee ot bows mousee” eS Barrett, ows City, Towa, vice ‘botme inlanione tie Atiss SL. Young. Danville. Ky.. vice pres. of wo- Fain’ sxecutive committes of howe missions, the Ar Oe. Of si i Poa ter MI Oe Se, on, poctety of home inlanions, the Cente. colts Stuart Mitchell "Me- Carivel, Wis upooRical mrmattaes T30t Kae Mrs. Sanford K. Knap) 1, &. Y., the Arno. Miss Knapp and friends. i. x. ¥". SE Rar nite Ee as anit M.A. Ferris, Lexington ave., New York, 10cm Mrs P Mt, vice waitin em woman Balsimsre Ma PTS foreign mission society, Mrs CP. Ty . Drwe scotty Prostytoriad: Church. "Puadapine Begs Sine. 0. Netec t 4 eth Frectsaeelnet tee, oman freien miaion wo. im Fry oth eve Nr Wore ecgetary "at Cor at Fat ae keke Mr B. Candeld Joie. Ww a L Son. Westminster Ev Rev. TM. Niven, bovis ‘the Litch- field” Mrs. J C. White, Knoxville, Tenn, the Mr. A. Bo Marshia'l, Kast Liverpool ir. Marat, past Livecoenk See. synodioal the Litchfield. jowk, Foscmete City, S08. Miss Anna Lud.iow, Re fee ofA. M., the Lihaenclg ” > vmedion! Son, Mrs. Chas, Beattie, Middietown, N.¥., Home Mis field. Mr 3-H, Mannine. Plainfield, X.J., Synodioal fie Sis. Freeland, Waldo, Pin sutertiied SS Mis hankin, Washington College, Tenn., Liteb- Miss Adelaide Pierson, Newark, §. Cu, Son, of Horne Mina oe Cont, of home missions, Rev. 5 A Memdith. Macon. Mo, with friend. Mrs 5. A. Merediti » Macon, Mo, friends. Mrs Fisher, Macon, Mo; with friends: Mrs. B.C. Draper. Syracuse, N’Y.. with friend@a, Rev. es ou iiacoln University, Chester <, oth Mrs. ik 1” Stewart. Lincoln University, Chester Pa., the Arnc co. Mrs. CW. Robinson, Bloomington, I. Synodical Soc. H. M., aynod ‘ Dr Maciean, 21st TL, sruest| . anil Mass ave. ‘ton, Kan, missionary, 1309 ia Si amy Stl Sin ital Mr A. K. Moore, Titian Territory, guest of Mmm. Luckett, 504 As. onc nal Biss 1M, Wonkard, New York cfty, the Arma. @ (an. cust of Mire “Henry A. Spy. . a. Aatville, guastet Mrs L. W. Kel- joe, 2) Pa. ave ne. . Ratterfield, Freedinan's Srey with friends. Nits bas Laney, cuestof Mra J. H. smythe, 1818 ne Rev. Holcombe, Indie, 1311 Conn. ave. Mra. Holcombe, India, 1311 Conn. ave. Rev; orger, Siam, euest of Mrs. ‘Chan Bradley, Mra. “Alexander, India, guest of Mrs. Jones, Capitol ST WA x. cout, 1716 Nxt. nw. ford, New York, the Arno. mater, Heme — See Matcer: Chine, Cactia a, Mew De. Hoban, 100 11th seme, ~ Chasey Santa Resa, Cal., Ebbitt Biss "Marit's Grates "Wilkensbung. Pen armest my Dies a Pron Pack = . re 'G. C. Campbell, Bur ‘a. 1410 Qt. Sire driype, Baltimare, Ma Litenaeld ee 3y hte. Kev. Tecotore teow Fuvotore Crow Thsedere Growl, = F. L. Sheppar antown, Pa He Condist, Germantown, Pa. adie. Gertnat jousthan Gralam, Germantowa. Fas |. M. Robinson, Philadel; Cina Hodge, Phuladeiptin. wit nen