The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1892-11-29
DR.. BRIGGS TRIAL.
The Eminent Educator Conducts
His Own Defense.
his OBJECTIONS TO THE CHARGES

New York, Nov. 29.-The trial of
Rev Charles A. Briggs on charge of
heresy began yesterday before the pres
bytery of New York in the Scotch Pres
byterian church on West Fourteenth
street. Rev. John G. Bliss, pastor of
the Washington Heights church, was
selected as moderator, and only those
members who attended the ecclesiastical
court two weeks ago were permitted to
serve as judges or jurors.
The gallery and part of the body of the
church was set aside for outside min
listers and other interested churchmen,
who had secured admission tickets in ad-
vance.
Professor Briggs conducted his own
defense, aided by Professor Brown, of
the Union Theological seminary, and the
Rev. H. NJ Field.
The memorial sermon which the pres
bytery objects to was delivered by DR..
Briggs on Jan. 90, 1891, and was the in
augural address at the Union Theologi-
cal seminary. The trouble which fol-
lowed resulted In the withdrawal of the
seminary from the general assembly.
The institution supported Dr. Briggs
and did not believe that his teachings
were contrary to the standard Presby-
terian doctrine. After roll call DIR.
Briggs began to read his answer. DIR.
Briggs began by stating that he appeared
before the presbytery of New York III
compliance with q citation dated No
vember last
DIR. Briggs Demnrrers.
After stating that he had no personal
desire to delay the actual trial of the
charge against him on its strict merits,
DIR. Briggs showed that it was necessary
for him to act as his own counsel, and in
xhis capacity he had no right to pass over
chnicalities or to allow the presbytery
i . establish dangerous or illegal prece-
dents II cannot yield to the heimpatience
bf friends on one side or the crowding of
enemies on the other" said he.
DR.. Briggs then made his first de-
murrer to the trial of the present charges
because the charges put in on Nov 8,
1892, were finally disposed of by the dis
missal of the case against him on Nov.
4, 1891, and that the presbytery cited
him a second time on charges which they
had dismissed.
His second objection raised was to the
order and regularity of every proceeding
In the presbytery in any action taken
against him since the dismissal of the
original charge in 1891.
DR.. Briggs then said: "It is not for
me to advise the presbytery what course
they should pursue. | have done my
duty in filing these objections. | have
emily this further word, that If the pres
bytery shall decide against me shall
proceed under protest and with the res
ervation of ali legal rights Of securing
such redress In the higher courts as may
seem necessary"
The second section Of Dr. Briggs pro-
best was against the irregulaIity of the
amendments to the original charges. He
pointed out that amendments to the
charges by the law of the church are
restricted to form and not to change in
substance.
The remainder Of DR.. Briggs response
was in part as follows:
The Original Charge Changed.
81 object to the amended charges in
Shat the nature Of the original charges
has been changed. The original charges
sailed attention TO several doctrines
taught by me, which, as it was claimed,
were in conflict with the standards. The
only doctrine of the standards with
which conflict was alleged was the 'car-
dinal doctrine"-"That the scripture Of
the Old and New Tastaments are the
only infallible rule of faith and practice. u
The amended charges allege conflict
with nine essential doctrines of the
Westminster standards.
'tThe general nature of the original
charges is changed by the introduction
Of eight new charges. l might ask the
presbytery to follow the direction Of the
general assembly and the law Of the
book of discipline and 80 amend these
amended charges as to cast ont Of
them those eight new charges. If you
edhere strictly to law you must do it.
But SO far as ] am concerned, shall
waive this objection as regards six OF
these new charges and make my stand
against two of thoIn.
"Let us consider the last charge first
This introduces new charge, namely
that my teaching conflicts with the es
sential doctrine that the souls of be-
1eyers are at their death at once made
perfect in holiness Inasmuch as the
original second charge neglected to state
what doctrine of the standards it was
with which the doctrine of progressive
Banotiioation after death came in con
fiict, and this amended charge may be
regarded as such statement. waive my
my objection TO it and consent to go to
trial on the eighth of the present charges.
"If a minority should be convinced
that my teaching Is in conflict with the
essential doctrine that Holy Scripture is
ElUbk iltC6ShAE " anu dlDtiiSL
composed of different persons should bt
convinced that my teaching is in conflict
with the essential doctrine that Holy
Scripture is the rule of faith and prac
tice, these two ininorities might become
majority and vote me guilty If tbs
vote should be taken on the two charges
together, when amajority of votes woult
ncquit me If a vote were taken on eacf
charge separately. 1t is my right to in
Bist that this new charge be stricken out
At the same time ] am entirely Willing
TO be tried on this charge as a separat,
charge, if the presbytery SO desire
Professor Briggs then reviewed tn
various charges at length, concluding a
follows:
Against Christian Courtesy.
al ask the presbytery if 1t is Just, if i
is honorable, If it is in accordance witt
Christian courtesy and gentlemanl,
propriety, for the prosecution to maxi
buch charges against ine2 They put yol
in dilemma. Either you must, witt
them, challenge my yeraeity, or els
you must permit them to present proc
khht my explanations of my teaching
ire erroneous, and that their explana
hons must be accepted as true. IT yol
gish to challenge my veracity yol
Shonld do it under moral CHARGE Tol
cannot do it under a doctrinal charge
If you permit them to make such Ok
plantations, and recognize them as valid
you will engage in illegal procedure, TO
according to the decision OF the suprem
court of The church in the Craighea
case, mo man can rightly be conyicte
Of hsresy by inference or implication
1T is not right 10 charge any man wit
an opinion which he disavows.'
1t was o'clock when DR.. Briggs fir
ished his response, after which Rev.
answered Dr. Briggs, and reproved hin
for calling the prosecuting ocmmitte
nckls for the numerous changes in tn
indictment, when he, by his objection
was the cause of all the alterations thi
have been made.
DR. GEORGE NJ Alexander then ofTere