Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-11-29
BRIGGS ON A RACK
Nov Charges of Heresy
Brought Against Him.
NINE COUNTS INSTEAD OF ONE
he Acts a. His Own Counsel and
Promptly Offsets 10 the Form
Of the Charges.


OF herssy, began at noon before the
Prssbytery of New York. The Rev.
John c. Bliss u moderator, and only
rhose members VINO attended the eeies-
-lastiesl court two weeks ago were per-
N tied 10 serve a. judges and jurors.
Professor Briggs conducted his own
defense. aided by Professor Brown, OF
the Uaion theological Seminary. and
the Rev. III. NJ. Field. The memorial
sermon which the Presbytery objects 10
WAS delivered by Dr. Briggs on January
70. 1891, and Was the inaugural address
At the Union theological Seminary.
The trouble whicn followed resulted in
tue withdrawal of the seminary from
the general assembly. The institution
supported Dr. Briggs and did rot be-
Leve that his teachings were contrary
10 the standard Presoy yterian doctrine
HIS Own coanssL
Or. Briggs read hrs answer. stating
that he appeared before the presoytrry
IN compliance with citation dated
November = last tie made demurrer
10 the trial OF the present charges be-
cause the charges put into ms hands on
November 9, ls92, were finally disposed
him on November 4. 1891, and that the
presbytery could not legally cite him .
second time 90 answer charges which
they had dismissed. He objected To
tns order and regularity OF every pro-
seeding Ia the prsseyter, IN any action
taken agsinsg hlm sluce the dismissal of
the original charge IN 1891. DR.. Briggs
then said. ''ls - not Tor me TO advise
the prcsbytery what course they should
pursue. | have done my duty in fling
these objections. | have only this fur
ther word, that II the prespytery shall
decide against me. l shall proceed IN
der protest and with the reservation of
ali legal rights of securing sucn redress
IN The higher courts as may seem nec-
essary."
What He Has To Answer.
The amended charges ailege conflict
with nine essential doctrines OF the
Westminster standards, as follows:
1. That the holy scripture Is most
necessary.
2. That holy scripture is the rule of
faith and practice.
8. That holy scripture is the word Of
God written.
4. That holy scripture is Immediately
inspired.
5. That God Is true. omisscient and
unchangesble-
8. That holy scripture evidences II
self TO be the word of God by the con-
sent OF AL the parts.
7. That the infalIibls rnle of inter-
pretation of scripture 10 the scripture
itself.
). Tia, the processes of redemption
are limited TO thls world.
Al
tkeir ueath At once made perfect IN
holiness.
The original charges allege conflict
with only one doctrine which islnclud-
ed ss one of the nine. Therefore, 1t Is
evident that the general nature of the
original charges IS changed by the in
PRODUCTION of eight new charges
The Doctor Argues
Charges one and two agree in alIeg.
ing conflict with the essential doctrines
OF the holy scriptures and OF the stand
ards; that holy scripture is mos, aeees-
-ary, and the rule OF faith and practice.
The original charge was limited to con-
tiict with the cardinal doctrine that
holy scripture Is the rule of faith aud
practice. II these two charges had
limited themselves to tina; essential
doctrine, they would be improper for
the trial. but they insert an additional
essential doctrine, namely, that the
holy scripture IS most necessary. This
changes the nature OF the charge, and
you cannot legally allow II.
Kidding Charges.
"It Isuot m the interest Of Justice that
q defendant should be exposed to con-
vict.on for conflict with two doctrines
in one charge. for De might easIy be
convicted by \ minority vote. IL mi
nOrity should he convinced that my
teaching is IN conflict with the essential
doctrine that Hoy Scripture is not
necessary. and another minority COM
posed different persons should be con-
snced that my teaching - Ia conflict
with the essential doctrine that Holy
Scr pturs' 10 the rule OF faith and prsc-
tsce. These two ninorities might be-
come q majority and vote me guilty II
The vote should be taken on the two
charges together. when a majority OF
votes would scquit me II vote were
taken on each ehsrge separately. IL -
my right 90 INSIST that this new charge
lie stricken Qua Al the same time |
an entirely Wiling to Re tired on this
cnsrge a. ssparste charge il the pres
bytery so desire u.
of'r tie same ooJect0n 20 cnarge
three. Three offenses are alleged IN
this chsFge-nemeiv. hat my teach
ings are IN coatiict With the essential
doctrine III. that Holy Scripture j. the
word Of God written. 81. that Holy
Scripture a immediately inspired and
e.. thss holy SCRIPTURES s the rule of
fsith aud practice.
senaictfwx tharx~.
"Chsrges FIVE snd sx are oper a.
more serious objection. Thev sgrea IN
alleging that my doctrines conflict win
two essential doctrines. namely. that
she Holv ~crIpture evidence. u-~If 10
be the word OF God by the consent Of
a. the parts and tbst the iofsliibie rule
af Interpretation = tn- scripture ,fsalf.
hotn ~ which are new charges ard
tnsrefs,re transcend the nature of the
cr1uiral charge. when vss solely sba,
thee teachings conflict With tne car.
asnal doctrine that Holy scripture =
the isfsllihie rule of faith ard prse-
tee Therpforp n law von should
either renovr these charges. bscauss
they change tbe ussnrs of tne orixnal
charge. or eise reins~rt - the-s
rhsrxes the essentfsi doctflns mea-
toned n ths oFielnsi euarRes.
wN~-s. wfsAIs wh-~f.
r. p...,.s. -. s..ssa a. r ksy4es fan- asslf