The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-11-29
TWO GREAT HERESY TRIALS
Professors Briggs and Smith Before New
York and Cincinnati Presbyteries.
The Former Replies TO the Amended Charges
and Accuses His Prosecutors of Ringing
In" Charges-Dr. Smith Again WOrsted.

NEW YORK, Nov. 2S.-This afternoon New
York Presbytery convened as a trial court
In the old Scotch Presbyterian Church.
The defendant was Prof. Charles A. Briggs,
who IS accused of heretIcal teachings. DR..
John c. Bliss was moderator. The church
was crowded. Professor Briggs was pres
ent with his counsel. and sat under the
left of the pulpit. The prosecuting com
mlttec, consisting of Dr.. ID. w. +. Burch,
Col. J. j. McCook, DR.. r.. T. Sample. Dr.. J.
j. Lampe and Prof. j. j. Stevenson. sat In
front of the first pew Ct the right of the
pulpit; DR.. Bliss, DIR. Alexander. the stated
clerk, and the clerk and assistant clerk of
the session sat apart upon the platform. The
court consists of la ministers and ninety
four elders.
At 3 o'clock DE-. Briggs began to read his
answer to the charges as amended. The
response was a most exhaustive summing
mp of his defense. After stating that he
had no personal desire to delay the actual
trial of the charge against him on their
strict merits. DR.. Briggs showed that 1t
was necessary for him to act as his own
counsel. and in this capacity he had no
right to pass over technicRlities and to
allow the p~resbytery to establish danger
Gus or illegal presidents. DR.. Briggs then
made his first demurrer TO the trial OF the
present charges because the charges put In
his hands on Nov. 9. 1892, were finally dis
posed OF by the dismissal OF the case
against him on Nov. 4, 1891, and that the
presbytery could not legally cite him q
second time to answer charges which they
bad dismissed. The second objection which
Dr. Briggs raised was to the order and
regularity of every proceeding in the pres
bytery IN any action taken against him
since the dismissal of the original charges
in 1891. But it Is not for me-" he said. Ito
advise the presbytery what course they
should pursue. l have lone mig duty in
tighing these objections. If the presbytery
decides against me l shall proceed under
protest and with the reservation of all
legal rights of securing such redress In the
higher courts as may seem necessary"
In the second section of his protest DR..
Briggs dealt with the irregularlty of the
amendments to the original charges. He
pointed out tina: amendments to charges
by law of tho church are restricted to
changes in form, and not to changes in. sub
stance. He then said:
objected to the amended charges that the nat
ure OF the original charges has been changed.
The original called attention to several doctrines
taught by me, which. as il was claimed, were in
conflict with the standards. The only doctrine
OF the standards with which conflict was alleged
was the cardinal doctrines; that the scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments are the only in
falliDle rule OF faith and practice" The amend
ed chargrs ailege conflict with nine essential
" tho 49,
First, that the Holy Scripture is most necessary;
second, that Holy Scripture is the rule OF faith
and practices; third, that Holy Scripture 10 the
word OF God written; fourth, the Holy Scripture
is Immediately in spirit; fifth, that God is true,
omniscient and unchangeable; sixth, that Script
ure evidences itself to he the Word OF God by the
consent OF all the parts; seventh, that the infal-
lible rule OF Interpretation of Scripture is the
Scripture itself: eighth. that the processes OF re-
demption are limited to the world; ninth. that
the souls or believers are at their death at once
made perfect in holiness.
U1-S 49, v,n< ohorro a~a<
This introduces q new charge, namely, that my
teaching conflicts with the essential doctrine,
shat the souls of believers are at their death at
once made perfect in holiness" l waive my OBJ
lection TO IT. and l con sent to go 10 trial on the
eighth Of the present charges.
~SecOnd-Charges one and two agree in alleg-
ing conflict with the essential doctrine OF the
Holy Scriptures and OF the standards, that Holy
Scripture is most necessary and the rule OF faith
and practice" The original charge was limited
to conflict with "the cardinal doctrine that Holy
Scripture Is the rule OF faith and practice" Ii
these two charges had limited themselves to
that essential doctrine they would be in proper
form for trial, but they insert an additional es-
sentiai doctrine, namely. that "the Holy Script
ure Is most necessary" This changes the nature
1t is my right to insist that this new charge be
stricken out. At the same time 1 am entirely
charge. If the presbytery SO desires. This you
may accomplish either by breaking up charges
one and two into two charges or by ruling that a
vote shall be taken on each OF the two items and
charges one and two separately.
Third have the same objection to charge
three; These offenses are alleged in this charge.
namely. that my teachings are in conflict with
the essential doctrines: 81 That "Holy Scripture
is the word of God written:" ~ that "Holy
Scripture Is Immediately inspired;" and tl that
"Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and prac-
tice. Only the first Of the three was in the orig
}n ma c speslnc az Mitch me s6 shi sSs %as IN the yo orig,
part. But the second Is an entirely new charge,
and on that account transcends the nature OF
the original charge.
F~ourth-Charges five and six are open to more
serious objection. They are new charges, and
therefore transcend the nature OF the original
charge.
Fifth-Two charges remain to be considered.
namely four and. seven. They are new charges.
have another objection 10 them; They charge
pressly disclaimed.
The reading of DR.. Brlggs's demurrer
occupied more than three-Quarters OF an
hour, and 1t was 4 o'clock when he resumed
his seat. Mr. Lampe, of the prosecuting
committee. submitted an answer to Dr..
Briggs objections. The speaker attempt
ed to show the falsity of the defendants
statement that the general nature of
the charges was changed in the amended
report. he also claimed that the changes
that had been mad were effected in the
interest Of conciseness, for the purpose OF
meeting the objections raised by DE-. Briggs
at hes previous trial.
A sensation was sprung by DR.. George
Alexander q moment after Mr.. Lampe had
finished speaking. The pastor of the Uni
versity Place Church moved that, in conse-
Quence of the objection made by the ac-
cused. the fourth and seventh charges
of the amended report be stricken out. The
motion was seconded by Dr.. Brown of the
Union Theological Seminary. DIR. Sutton
Immediately offered as an amendment that
the objections OF DR.. Briggs were not
we'll taken. This brought DR.. Vandyke to
his feet. He asserted that the amendment
was out of order, inasmuch as is was not
pertinent to the motion. At this ~juncture
DIR. Sutton began an argument intended TO
show that DIR. Briggs had never retracted
the statement OF his address and that the
two charges were founded on that address.
He was interrupted by DE-. Paxton. who
shouted. Give US Q decision and stop this
talking"
Lawyer McCook, of the prosecuting COM
mittee. restored qniet by proposing that
the consideration of the motion be post
poneh until Tomorrow. In the meantime
the committee would consider the objection
made by the defendant. and would make
whatever concessions 1t could consistent
with the performance of Its duty. This
closed the days proceedings.
Second Charge Against Smith Sustained.
CINCINNATI, Nov. 2S.-The heresy trial of
Prof. Henry =. Smith. of Lane Theological
Seminary. was resumed this morning By tie
Cincinnati Presbytery IN the First Presby-
terrain Church. In the beginning Professor