The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-05-12
HETERNpON DIR. BRIGGS.
His Addrcs Before the Union Theological
Seminary CensNred.

His Address Before the Union Thc0lOgl cal
Seminary Censured.
NEW York, May 1.-THE committee Of
the New York Preshytery appointed to cou-
slider the alleged heresy in tho address Of
Rev. DIR. Briggs before the Union Theologi-
cal seminary, January 20 last, submitted
their reports before the meeting of tho
Prcsbytery this afternoon. The majority
report openly accuses DR.. Briggs Of heresy
and radical divergence from the belief of
Faith. 1t was signed by Rev. DR.. g. w
Birch, Rev. DIR. Jesse I. Forbes, Rev. Or.
Joseph j. Lampe and Prof. John
j. Stevenson. The minority report
was presented solely by Rev. Or.
j. II. McIlwaine of the Chnreh
of the Covenant. Walter Edwards, a laW-
yer. who was also on the committee, 90
clined to sign either report. He agrees with
the majority report AS TO its first article,
the sources of divine authority, ana agrees
with the minority on the other propositions.
There was q large audience present when
the P~resbytery convened thlsattefnoon, in-
Guiding opponents and partisans OF Dr.
Briggs, and there was much applause at
different points in the debate. when
routine business was taken up DR.. Hastings
arose and offered the resolutions setting
forth the action of the Chester (Penn.
presbytery, which made the first complaint
against DIR. Briggs. asking that the New
York preshytery make overtures to the gen
eral assembly to pronounce against the
Chester presbytery, because it violated the
constitutional rights of Briggs in declaring
his views wrong while he is q men,
Der of the New York Presbytery
in good standing; and violated
the constitutional rights of the New YORK
presbytery. which has sole jurisdiction over
Briggs. Similar action was asked against
other p~resbyieries which have followed the
lead of Chester. After q vigorous debate
Hastings resolution was defeated-titty-six
to tifty-seven. Then DIR. Briggs arose and
read a lengthy protest against the ac.lon OF
the presbytery of New York in appoin Mt
ing a committee of investigation on
his inaugural address, ETC., as unconstltu-
! tional, as a violation of the usages or the
denomination, and rs q breach or Justice
and sound discipline. Hewen on to denne
at length each of these points. Among
other things he said no previous lntlmatlon
was given HIM by movers or supporters OF
the motion of intention to take such action
against him. The committee was ap-
pointed in his absence, when ill, IN
contravention of decisions OF the general
assembly that no discussion ought to be al
lowed "involving the character of an alb
sent person." Furthermore, he had no op-
portunity for making any explanation to
the presbytery such as might have made
the appointment of the committee IN.
necessary. 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 individuals who have rashly,
consciously and maliciously instituted
these charges"
Here DR.. Briggs was called to a point Of
order. He said he had asked members OF
the presbytery again and again to charge
him with heresy. He wanted an adjudica-
ton of the presbytery of the question,
then let it 90 to the general assembly:
What he complained of was that he received
no official intimation of the committee's
appointment. Then DR.. Birch arose to a
question of privilege and said he had per
sonally notified DR.. Briggs of the meeting
of the committee and invited him to be
present; that Briggs had declined, alleging
ill-health and illegality of the committee.
Then DR.. Briggs admitted receiving a letter
from Birch, but said it was not official.
After unintelligible wrangling over motions
an adjournment was taken until tomorrow,
the report of the committee being made the
first order of the day.