The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-11-07
ARE GLADIT Is SETTLED.
PREssYrERIANs THANKFUL THAT
THE BRIGGS TRIAL Is OVER.

A Savannah Pastors Opinion of the
Case-Dr. Briggs Not the Man to
Back Down From Position He Has
Once TAKEN and the New YORK
Would Decide as They Did Without
Being Satisfied That DR.. Briggs Was
in Line with the Church.
The scquittal Of DR.. A. Briggs Of the
Union Theological Seminary OF New York,
by the New York presbytery Of the charge
Of heresy, is most intering subject 10 the
members Of the Presbyterian church In
Savannah and throughout the cOuntsy, and
TO theologisns generally.
The charge of heresy against DR.. Briggs
has agitated the Presbyterian church for
about a year now, ever since he delivered
his inaugural address upon entering on
bis duties as professor Of theology at the
Union Theological Seminary. This address
created a sensation in the Presbyterian
church and was considered highly unortho-
dox by leading members OF the church.
the chief charge against DR.. Briggs. as has
been frequently stated was that be disputed
the exemption of the Bible from error. At
the meeting Of the New York presbytery
this week Dr. Briggs was tried and acquitted
Of the charges against him, though not
without some structures on his "big words
DR.. Briggs acQuittal was a surprise to
many Presbyterians throughout the coun-
try.
WHAT A SAVANNAH PASTOR SAYS.
A MORNING NEWS reporter called upon
Rev. DIR. Dripps of the Independent Presby-
terrain church yesterday, and asked him
IA cd ha nr II
he believed the matter is settled now, and
properly so. From his knowledge of DIR.
Briggs character and that OF the ministers
composing the New York presbytery
he was satisfied that DR.. Briggs was
not the man to retract what
be bad Saidi or lack down from a position
he had taken, and that on the other hand
unless the presbytery was well satisfied
that DIR. Briggs was fully in line with the
principles OF the Presbyterian church they
would not have decided as they did.
He must have satisfied them that his
belief was such as to. justify his being left
on the inside or he would not have been left
there" said DIR. Dripps. "The whole trouble
with DR.. Briggs, think, is his manner Of
expression. He isn't careful how he ca
presses bis views and he is not careful that
bis hearers understand what he
says as he means it. He
never seems ito consider that bis
hearers may carry away an entirely differ
ent idea OF what he has said 70 that which
he holds himself. He has some peculiar
ideas upon certain subjects which his pecu-
harity Of expression aud his carelessuess in
making himself understood cause to appear
in very prominent light.
HIS IDEAS OF RELIGION.
Zone of the things chiefly objected to in
his inaugural address," DR.. Dripps ex-
nlRtnn6 hQh no {0ht
our ideas Of religion in three
ways, one, from the Bible
itself, another from the church and
another from our reason. That statement
might mean q great deal if not properly ex-
claimed. 1t might mean that we might gain
our ideas of religion from reason alone, to
TIE neglect of the Bible and
the church, or it might mean
that we might take them
from the church alone without reference to
reason or the Bible. Both OF thess views
would be contrary to the doctrine Of the
church. He afterward explained this by
saying that the ideas of religion which we
obtain from reas N are those dictated by the
common sense implanted within us, and
those that we obtain from the church are
such as are not laid down in the Bible, prob.
ably because it was not necessary to outline
them there.
A FULL EXPLANATION MADE.
"Dr. Briggs made full explanation of
his position before the presbytery aud am
satisfied that If lie were not worthy to be
on the inside he would MOI have been left
there. think the case will be dropped
where it is and nothing further will be
heard from it.n
DR.. Dripps explained the plan of the
Union Theological Seminary, which is a
neutrality-suspicious. institution. DIR. Briggs
will probably remain as professor of the
oogy, as the directors of the institution
think very highly Of him. The question Of
their right to retain him is in dispute, how.
ever.