Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1892-11-29
DIR. BRIGGS, DEFENSE

Before the New York Presbytery-
TWO Hours Occupied in the Dc.
livery Technical Objections -
Argues That the Amended Charges
are Illegal.
; NEW YORK, Nov. 2S.-When the mem.
bers of the New York Presbytery went
into session as a court in the old Scotch
Presbyterian church soon after O'Clock
this afternoon, they had expressed an almost
unanimous hope that when they adjourn
ed the case of Professor Charles A. Briggs,
whom they are trying on charges of heresy,
would be thing of the past.
Before the moderator, Dr.. John G. Bliss,
called to order, the divines and elders had
discussed in little groups the subject, and
it was clear that every effort to ,Prolong
and delay the final passing upon the case
would meet with the unsympathetic OPP
position of the jury.
Professor Briggs was at present with his
counsel, and sat just under and at the left
of the pulpit. The prosecuting committee
sat in front of the irst pew at the right of
the pulpit. The court now trying Dr.
Briggs on the heresy charges, consists of
ia ministers and ninety four elders.
Moderator Bliss announced that the OBJ
jections of DIR. Briggs and his expressed
purpose to carry his objections to the
synod should not be interpreted as obstruc-
tions to the trial, but as an honest express
sion of conviction. He also said he be-
lieved the prosecuting committee equally
conscientious.
At o'clock DR.. Briggs began to read his
answer to the charges as amended. The
| response was an exhaustive summing up
of his defense and 1t required two hours
for him to deliver it.
After stating 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 this capacity
he had no right to pass over technicslities
or to allow the presbytery to establish dan
gerous 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 November
| 8, 1899, were finally disposed of by the
dismissal of the case against him on No
vember 4, 1891, and that the presbytery
could not legally cite him q second time
to answer charges which they had dis
| missed.
The second objection which DIR. Briggs
raised was to the order and regularity of
| every proceeding in the presbytery in any
| action taken against him since the dismis-
sal of the original charges in 1891.
''But it is not for me-" he said, "to sd-
| wise the presbytery what course they
should pursue. have done my duty in
filing these objections. 1 have only this
further word, that if the presbytery decide
against me 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 irregulsrity of the
amendments to the original charges. He
pointed out that amendments to charges
by law of the church are restricted to
changes in form, and not in substance. He
then said:
81 object to the amended charges that
the nature of the original charges has been
changed. The original charges called at
tention to several doctrines taught by me
which it was claimed were in conflict with
the standards. The only doctrine of the
standards with which conflict was alleged
was the cardinal doctrine that the script
ures of the Old and New Testaments are
the only infallible rule of faith and prac-
ttce.
"The amended charges allege conflict with
nine essential doctrines of the Westminster
standard, as follows:
~ That the holy scripture is most nec-
essary.
C2) That holy scripture is the rule of
faith and practice.
81 That holy scripture is the word of
God written.
~ That holy scripture is immediately
inspired.
(5) That God is true, omniscient and
Interchangeable.
a,-;l
to be the word of God by the consent of
all the parts.
(0 That the infallible rule of inter
probation of scripture ia the scripture IT.
self
~ That the processes of redemption
are limited to the world.
(0 That the souls of believers are at
their death once made perfect in holt
ness.
It is my right to insist that this new
charge be stricken out. At the same time
1 am entirely willing TO be tried on this
charge as a separate charge, If the presby-
terry 30 desire. This you may accomplish
by breaking up charges 1. aud III. into two
charges or by ruling that a vote shall be
taken on each of the two items and charges
1. and II. separately. have the some OBJ
lection to charge III. Three offenses are
alleged in this charge, namely, that my
doctrines: THAT ''holy scripture is the
word of God written" 2-That "holy
scripture is Immediately inspired;" and
that "holy scripture is the rule of faith
and practice" Only the first of the three
was in the original specifications.
The third was in the original charge
of which that specification was part. But
the second is an entirely new charge and
on that account transcends the nature of
the original charge. Charges and vi
are open to mora serious objections. They
agree in alleging that my doctrines con-
| fict with two essential doctrines namely:
| ~ That the holy scripture evidences itself
to be the word of God by the consent of
all the parts, and (2) that the infallible
rule of Interpretation is the scriptures it.
self, both of which are new charges and
| therefore transcends the nature the
original charge which was solely that
these teachings conflict with the cardinal
doctrines that "holy scripture is the in
| fallible rule of faith malpractice. Iobject
to charges " and VII, on two grounds:
| (s) These are new charges, which SO change
| the general nature of the original charges
that they cannot legally be allowed; and (b)
| it is not in the interest of justice that such
charges as these should be approved by
the presbytery of New York.
DIR. Briggs further said that charges vi
and VII charged him with teaching doc
trines which he had expressly disclsimed,
and that specification made two serious
changes in a sentence of his inaugural adj
| dress.
Mr.. Lamper of the prosecuting commit
tee answered DR.. Briggs objections and
attempted to show the falsity of the de-
fendsnt's statement that the general nature
of the charges was changed in the amended
report. He also claimed that the changes
made were effected in the interest of con-
ciseness, and to meet objections raised by
DIR. Briggs at his previous trial. DIR.
George Alexander of the University place
church moved that in consequence of the
objection made by the accused, the ~ and
VII charges of the amended report be
stricken out. The motion was seconded
by DIR. Brown of the Union Theological
seminary. DR.. Sutton offered as an
amendment that the objection of DIR.
Briggs were not well taken. DR.. Vsndyke
asserted that the amendment was out of
: order. DIR. Sutton began an argument to
show that DR.. Briggs had never retrscted
, the statement of his address and that the
two charges were founded on that sd-
/. dress. He was interrupted, however, by
Rev. DIR. Paxton. Lawyer McCook pro-
posed that consideration of the motion be