The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-05-12
BRIGGS A HERETO.
Majority Of the Presbyterian
Assembly Against Him.
TWO REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
The Famous New York Clergyman's
Fight Against Orthodoxy-Minis-
tiers Fall to Quarreling.

NEW YORK, May 1.-THE committee of
the New York presbytery appointed TO
consider the alleged heresy in the address
OF Rev. DIR. Briggs before the Union Theo-
logical seminary, January % last, SUD
mifted their reports before the meeting of
the presbytery this afternoon. The ma
lority report openly accused DR.. Briggs of
heresy and radical divergence from the be-
lief In the church as stated in the Confess
sion Of Faith 1t was signed by Rev. DR..
6. w. Birch. Rev. Dr. James Forbes, Rev.
DR.. Joseph j. Lampe and Professor John
j. Stevenson. The minority report was
presented solely by Rev. DR.. ]. III. Nell
vain, of the Church of the Covenant.
Walter Edwards, a lawyer, who was also
on the committe, declined to sign either
report. He agrees with the majority re-
port as to its first article, Sources of
Divine Authority" and agrees with the
minority on other propositions.
There was large audience present when
the presbytefy convened this afternoon,
including opponents and partisans of Dr.
Briggs, and there was much applause at
the different points in the debate When
routine business was taken up Dr. Hast
ings arose and offered resolutions setting
forth the action of the Chester, Pa,
presbytery, which made the first
complaint against DR.. Briggs, and
declaring that the New York
presbytery overtures the general
assembly topronounce against the Chester
presbytery because it has violated the
constitutional rights of Briggs in declar-
ing his views wrong while member of the
New York presbytery in good standing,
and violated the constitutional rights OF
the New York presbytery which has cole
jurisdiction over Briggs. Similar action
was asked against other presbyteries
which have followed the lead of Chester.
After vigorous debate Hastings resolution
was defeated. 66 to ST.
Then DIR. Briggs arose and read q lengthy
protest against the action of the presby-
terry of New York in appointing COM
mittee for investigation of his inaugural
address. ETC., as unconstitutional: as in
violation of the usages of the denomina-
ton, and as breach of justice and sound
discipline He went on to define at
length each Of these points Among other
things he said that no previous in
timation was given him by the
movers or supporters Of the motion of
their intention to take such action
against him. A committee was appointed
in his absence. when i'll, in contravention
of the decision Of the general assembly
that no discussion ought to be allowed in
volving the character Of an absent person.
Furthermorc he had no opportunity for
making any explanation 20 ts4e presby-
terry, such as might make the appointment
of the committee unnecessary He also
argued on points of discipline based on
Presbyterian doctrine. and then. speaking
impromptu. said the committee was illegal
He Was prepared to name certain indi-
yiduals who have rashly, censoriously and
maliciously instituted these charges.
Here DIR. Briggs was called to point of
order. He said he had asked the members
of the presbytery to charge him with
heresy. He wanted an adjudication of the
preshytery on the question and then to let
il go to the general assembly. What he
complained of was that he had received
no official intimation of the committees
appointment.
Then DIR. Burch arose 10 question of
privilege. and said he had personally mott
fled DIR. Briggs of the meeting of the COM
mittee and invited him to be present, and
that Briggs declined. alleging iH-health
and the illegality of thu committee. Then
DIR. Briggs admitted receiving letter from
Burch, but said it was not official. After
unintelligihie wrangling over motions, an
adjournment was taken until tomorrow,
the reports of the committee being made
the first order of the day.