The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1877-05-10
Trial for Heresy.

IN announcing certain Dclels III Il DOCK re-
Gently published, resulted in his deposition
from the Church, of which he was a distln-
gtiislied member As a matter OF some local
interest, as we'll as general, inasmuch
as the reverend gentleman is the husband OF
the divorced wife of EX- Gov. Thomas, of
Nd, who is the daughter of the late
Gov. James Mcdowell, of Va, we publish
the following interesting statement OF the
case from the Trenton correspondence of
the New York Times. 1t will be read with
interest by our people generally.
TRENTON, May 3, 1877.
The Second Presbyterian Church of this
city was crowded to-day by those interested
in the trial before the New Brunswick Pres
bytery of Rev. Mr.. Miller for heresy. The
session was opened with prayer by Rev. Mr.
| Gesman, the Moderator, ut the conclusion Of
which the accused Pastor uttered fervent
| s'Amen' Rev. Mr.. StuddifOrd, OF LAM
bertville, Chairman Of the committee ap-
| pointed at a previous session to prefer speci-
| fled charges of heresy against Mr.. Miller,
| submitted the report of his committee, which
was substantially as follows That Rev. Mr..
Miller, a minister of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States, and member
of the Presbytery of New Brunswick, did
write and publish, about six weeks ago, .
book entitled tsQueStiOns Awakened by the
Bible" in which he publicly denied and as
sailed the important doctrines OF the confess
sion of faith and the catechism of the
Church. The charge was specified, first,
that Mr.. Miller teaches that the soul is not
immortal; that at the death OF the body it
dies, becomes extinct, and so continues until
the resurrection. This the committee thought
was contrary to their confession of faith,
which says that s'God created man, male
and female, with reasonable and immortal
souls and ''The bodies OF men, after death,
return to DUST and see corruption, but their
| souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an
| immortal subsistence, Immediately return to
| God who gave them." The particular para
graph which these specifications are brought
against is where Mr.. Miller. ia his book,
| says, s'the, whole doctrine that we plead for
is that the soul dies at death,'' and ssAdam
| is still extinct" and sswhen our Saviour died
He was out Of being qua homo, till the day
He rose again. and my brother who dies
| Tonight sinks into his original nothing
ness"
| Specification second was that Mr.. Miller
| teaches that "Christ as child Of Adam was
personally accounted guilty of Adams sin,
inherited q corrupt nature, and that he need
ed to be and was redeemed by his own
DEATH" The teaching is contrary to the
confession of faith, inasmuch as the confess
sion says, 1.-The Son of God, the Second Per-
son of the Trinity, being Very and Eternal
God, OF one substance and equal with the
Father, did, when the fullness of the time
was come, take upon him mans nature with
all the essential properties and common in
| ffrmities thereof, yet without SIM In his
book on this matter Mr.. Miller says, 'sWe
believe that Jesus Christ was an elected man,
and, with reverence be it spoken, that you
or might have been the chosen one for the
incarnation. We believe further that mas
much as He could not be cut off from sin,
except as the effect of ransom, Daniel and
Job and Abraham were saved, no otherwise
| than the humanity of Christ. Jesus Christ
was child Of Adam. Being such He was
guilty as being In the loins OF His fathers; or
i in whatever manner all are guilty before
they are born into the world. As such He
was dead man, according to the flesh. As
such He needed q ransom, and He broke the
bonds Of death for Himself and His people.
Christ was OF guilty parentage, though only
of q woman. He was of wicked nature by
right of descent, its wickedness, though not
its intirmity, being cut off from Him by the
Holy Ghost; nevertheless, He had to keep
that holiness and win it further by hard
trials OF temptation, and herein lay His tor
ture. This portion of the book goes on in
the same strain, and winds up by asserting
| that ''Jesns Christ, our incarnate God. fought
the battle as a poor lost man saved by
grace
Specification third was that Mr.. Miller
teaches that there is but one person in the
Gedhead, contrary to the Confession Of
L Eotf xutl,sn rARk
head there be three persons, of one SUBJ
stance. power and eternity The assertion
is contrary to the catechism, which says,
''there be three persons in the Godhead, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and
these three are one, true eternal God, the
same in substance, equal in power and glory,
although distinguished by their personal
properties In his book Mr.. Miller says, SCI
do not believe in the Trinity"
After the reading OF the charges was fin
ished, Mr.. Miller slowly arose and objected
to that passage OF the charge which accuses
him of saying that Christ needed regenera-
ton as well as other men. He denied that
he had written this, and desired that it be
stricken out. The report OF the committee
| was then handed back, and upon that poI-
ton being stricken out the examination pro-
ceeded. Mr.. Miller pleaded not guilty, and
in his own defense quoted from the works
of eminent divines who held his views in re-
gard to the immortality of the soul. He de-
MED that he had held that Christ was not
God, and said he believed the Father was
God, Christ was God, and the Holy Spirit
was God, but denied the existence of Trim
ity; they were separate. The reverend gen.
tlemen proceeded to defend his doctrine at
great length. He did not believe in the i'm
mortality of the soul he believed that when
person died the soul lay dormant until the
resurrection. Martin Luther, he said, was
one OF the many who opposed the doctrine
| of the Immortality of the soul. He did not
think he would be deposed from the minis
try for believing as he did. nor did he be-
lieve he would be deposed for abandoning
the doctrine OF the Holy Trinity, and fixing
himself on the divinity Of Christ, and look
ing up to him as God. He declared emphat-
ically that no theologian present could ex
plain the doctrine of the Trinity. He de-
MED that the doctrines propounded in his
book were heretical.
Rev. Mr.. Duffield, Professor in the
Princeton Theological Seminary, then took
| the floor and engaged the attention of the
tribunal all the rest of the afternoon with
his mastery definition OF the doctrines Of
| the Presbyterian faith. He claimed that
| Mr.. Miller should have notified the Presby-
terry Of his change Of views, and that he
l should not have written the book without
first consulting the Presbytery. He thought
that Mr.. Miller was the first man who ever
held such doctrines in regard to the Trinity.
The whole of Mr.. Miller's plea was that he
was true to the doctrines that were contain
ed in the Confession Of Faith, but that they
were not important. Mr.. Dufield thought
they were important, and referred in detail
to Mr.. Miller's book 70 back his assertions
Just here the Moderator arose, and said
that it was time to draw the session to q
close. He requested all the members to be
present this morning, when the trial will be
resumed.
! On the 4th the trial was concluded, with
verdict of deposition. The minutes are CIV
en- in the Times, as follows:
Upon the Presbytery reassembling at l
O'Clock, the roll of the members was called,
and those who chose had an opportunity to
express their views on the charges. Rev.
Mr.. Kennedy said that before he read the
book he thought it could contain nothing
but what could be explained away, but in
this he had been mistaken. He thought it
| was belittling the work Of God to write and
promulgate such doctrines as Mr.. Miller held.
He was in favor of sustaining the charges.
Rev. Mr.. Hegcman held that the book did
not teach that there was no immortality of
| the soul; the true meaning of the passage on