The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-01
THETWO HERESY TRIALS
MORE OF THE CHIRGES AGAINST
DR. BRIGGS DISMISSED.
Professor Smith Enters His Plea Of MOI
Guilty to the Several Charges of
Heresy Against Him.

NEW YORK, Nov. 3O.-At the Briggs
trial to-day the objections taken to the
amended charges by Or. Briggs were
first taken up. DR.. Francis Brown moved
that the first objection. namely. that the
charges Of November 1S 1899, were dis
posed Of By the dismissal Of the case on
November 4, 1891, and that the Presby-
terry could not legally cite him a second
time TO answer TO charges which they
had dismissed. The motion to sustain
the objection was lost by an overwhelm-
ing majority. The second objection 10
the order end regularity of the proceed
ings in the Presbytery in any and every
action taken against DR.. Briggs since
the dismissal of the said charges on No
Vember 4, 1884, was also lost. The third
objection was waived, because of some
misunderstanding among the members.
The fourth objection, objecting TO the
relevancy Of all Of the proofs from Scrip
ture, Confession and Catechism, was
voted down.
DR.. Briggs sixth objection was to the
offer Of evidence by wholesale, thus re-
ferring TO the submission Of his inaugural
address and writings without specitica-
IN. This objection was not sustained,
DR.. Briggs. as it showed the opinion OF
the members. and furnished a forecast
Of the final vote after the evidence Of the
trial is all in.
Il am Not Guilty" Says Dr. Smith.
CINCINNATI, o., Nov. 3O-At this
mornings session of the Smith heresy
trial Elder Sproul, of the Cincinnati Pres
bytery, offered a protest against the ac-
tiOn of the Presbytery in refusing TO sus-
tain Professor Smiths objection 20 the
first charge. 1t was admitted 70 record
and referred 10 the proper committee.
The Presbytery decided that the cita-
tions from the Scriptures and from Pro-
fessor Smiths pamphlet should be con-
sidered a part Of the Specifications. on
motion of DR.. Curtis it was ordered that
the charges and specifications be printed
as amended The clerk read the charges
and specifications as amended, and an
nounced that Professor Smith acknOwl-
edged service Of same. The moderator
then called upon Professor Smith TO enter
his plea. In a firm voice he replied
II am not guilty. Mr.. Moderator"
Or. Low then said the prosecution would
offer it's evidence: that testimony for the
defense would then be offered. and Pro-
fessor Smith could testify IN his own
behalf. A motion prevailed that the
charges be considered separately. The
first charge was that Professor Smith
taught enormously TO the New York
Evangelist, March 10. 1892 and April Z,
1892 that a doctrinal qualification Is only
required Of the officers Of the Church at
the time Of ordination. DR. Low said the
only evidence the prosecution committee
had was the two articles in the New York
Evangelist, referred TO in the charge.
Professor Smith said he admitted the
authorship Of the article in question ana
had no further testimony to offer.
DR.. McKibben then read the articles and
the citations of the prosecution commit
tee. consisting Of extracts from the con-
stitution OF the Presbyterian Church. the
certificate Of licensure. the baptismal for
mula and the Scriptures a recess was
then taken.
At the afternoon session Professor
Smith said he expected to construct the
texts Of the articles according to the
obvious mesIing Of their words. DR.. Me-
Kibben said the committee had no desire
beyond ascertaining whether the articles
bore out the charge preferred by the
prosecution. They had the kindest feel
ing toward Professor Smith, but We're
acting for the Presbyterian church. II
Professor Smith would disavow the in
terpretion put upon his Language The COM
mttee would even be willing - arrest
the charge. Professor Smitht said he
preferred to disprove the charge. The
issue being thus clearly defined DR.. Low
proceeded with his argument. He re-
viewed the articles by Professor Smith,
published in the New York Evangelist,
TO show that they were contrary TO sound,
discipline and bore out the construction
placed upon them by the prosecution
committee
Professor Smith then claimed that
there was no evidence in them to show
that he impugned the Westminster doc
trine. or in any way injured the peace
or purity Of the church. Or. McKibben
made the closing argument He said that
DR. Smiths very strength Of character
and honorable reputation made his teach
ings all the more dangerous.