The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-11-29
1Ae RRccS CASE

NEW YORK, Nov 28.-When the mem
bers Of the New YORK presbytery went in
to session as court in tue old Scotch
Presbyterian church, soon after O'Clock
this afternoon. they had expressed an
almost unanimous hope that when they
adjourned the case of Professor Charles
A. Briggs, whom they are trying on the
charge Of heresy, would be thing Of the
past. The divines and elders were of one
opinion-that every effort to prolong and
quibhling and evasion on technical points
would meet with the opposition of the
jury. The church was somewhat more
crowded than at the last meeting of the
presbytery Professor Briggs was pres
eut with his counsel. and sat just under
and at tue left Off pulpit. just as the
court convened u prominent divine said to
a reporter:
''Every objection possible-as to regu-
larity, Jurisdiction, suficieucy Of charges.
FORM legal effect, or legality Of procedure
itselt-is expected by the court, because of
the spirit which has been previously
shown by the accused at every former
session where the question at issue has
been considered. The charges, eight in
number. accuse Professor Briggs of teach
ing that reasop is fountain of divine
authority. which may sayingly enllghten
men, even those who reject the Scriptures
as an authoritative proclamation OF the
will of God. and those who re- ject the
mediation of Christ; that this fountain OF
divine authority, apart from the Scrip
lures, does savingly enlighten men; that
errors have existed in the original text of
the holy scriptures. as it came from the
authors; that many of the Old Testament
predictions have been reversed by history.
and that the great body of the Messianic
predictions have not and cannot be fui-
filed; that Moses is not the author of the
Pertateuch; that Isaiah is not the author
of half the book that bears his name; that
the processes Of redemption extend TO tue
world to come in the case OF many who
die in a sanetity that is not complete at
death"
Moderator Bliss asked the privilege of
making an announcement. He said that
the objections OF Dr. Briggs aud his ex-
pressed purpose to carry the objections 10
the synod should not be interpreted AS
expression of conviction. He also said
that he believed the prosecuting COM
mittee to be equally conscientious.
At o'clock Dr. Briggs began to read
his answer TO the charges as amended. It
was u most exhaustive summing up OF his
defense. Dr. Briggs first demurred to II
trial on the present charges, because they
were finally disposed of by the dismissal
OF the charges made Nov. 4, 1901, and that
the presbytery could not legally cite HIM "A
second time to answer charges which they
had dismissed The second objection was
to the order and regularity OF every pro-
ceeding in the presbytery III any action
taken against him since the dismissal OF
the orgna charges in 1891. He said that
he had only done his duty. III the pres
bytery decide against me, he continued.
II shall proceed under protest and with
the reservation of ali legal rights of
securing such redress IL the higher courts
as may seem necessary"
In the second section of his protest. DR..
Briggs dealt with the irregub.rity OF the
amendments to the original charge, which,
under church law, would contain no new
charge and could not be changed III their
nature.
He argued to show that charges one
two, three, four, five, six aud seven We're
new charges, and that charge seven
CHARGED him With teaching doctriues
which he had already disclamed.
Mr.. Lamper, of the Prosecuting com
mittee. submitted an answer 10 DIR.
Briggs objections. The speaker attempted
TO show the fallacy of the de endant's
statement that the general nature of the
charges was changed in the amended re-
port.
Then a sensation was sprung by Dr.
George Alexander OF University Place
Church. who moved that, IN consequence
OF the objection made by the accused. the
fourth and seventh charges of the
amended report be stricken out.
The motion wa. seconded by DR.. Brown
OF Union Theological seminary.
DIR. Suttoa Immediately offered Al
amendment that the objections of Dr..
Briggs were not well saken.
This brought Dr. Van Dyke 20 his feet
he asserted that the amendment WAS out
OF order. iuasm ueh as it was not pertinent
20 The motion
AT this juncture Dr. Lyon began an ar
gument on the motion. He was interrupt
ed b. DR.. Paxton, who shouted; Gtyc Us
d decision aad stop his talking"
Lawyer McJooA OF the prosecuting COM
mitiee restored quiet by proposing that
the consideration OF the motion be post
poned until tomorrow
y recess ~ss tiseu taken till tomorrow.
THE CESCISNATI HgEETIc
CINCINNATI, Nov. 21-Tas heresy trial
OF Professor Henry Z. Smith oi LAas
Theological seminary was resumed To-day
Professor SprouIi gave notice OF protest
against The action of the pre>bytsry III the
last SESSION "a voting 20 sa-tain tae fret
ei-f-e aisa >orcaileatIoa> IS proper sls form
and l<gai effect Dehsss MSS tssa resussl-
ed oa tie suiiic;ency ia form asd isga;
Silrct of ths rSSosa caHrye and H. spseiGl-
caiiohs <iais II real y tar rnsss stnoor Iatst
81 she tnfes Charge, pgeseatesi, as u ia-
vofve> thc r>gi question OF Professor
smiths te4cai.s.. ia regard to tie snspsrs-
lon OF sIe Bsi,se lie mesaaers 81 the
sn'tsf. almost without except ion. address
rd themselves 1iscxr.-scs OF Lie qtsrs-
slen uRetser Professor Sanssns .eacaiia.,
WIS or was uus .svntrssy 30 the ful6smeas-
tai aectsia- O. The cAageu- No foss had