The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1892-12-08
CLIFTON FORGE, VIRGINIA. THURSDAY
DIR. BRIGGS TRIAL.
The Eminent Educator Conducts
His Own Defense.

teran Church on West Fourteenth street
Rev. John G.. Bliss, pastor of the Wash
ington Heights Church, was selected az
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
ministers and other interested church
men, who had secured admission tickets
in advance.
Professor Briggs conducted his own
defense, aided by Professor Brown, OF
the Union Theological Seminary, and
the Rev. H. NJ. Field.
| The memorial serAaon which the Pres
| bytery objects to was delivered by Dr.
Briggs on January Goth, 1891, and was
the inaugural address at the Union The
| illogical Seminary. The trouble which
followed resulted in the withdrawal OF
the Seminary from the General Assem-
bly,. The institution supported Dr.
Briggs and did not believe that his
teachings were contrary to the standard
Presbyterian doctrine. After roll call
DR.. Briggs began to read his answer
DR.. Briggs began bySstating that he APP
peared before the Presbytery of New
York in compliance with citation dated
N Ovember last
DIR. BRIGGS DEMURERs.
After stating that he had no personal
desire to delay the actual trial of the
charge against him on it's strict merits,
DR.. Briggs showed that it was necessary
for him to act as his own counsel, aud in
this capacity he had no right to pass
over technicalities or to allow the Pres
bytery to establish dangerous or Illegal
precedents. II cannot yield to the i'm
patience of friends on one side or the
crowding of enemies on the other" said
he.
DR.. Briggs then made his first demur-
er to the trial of the present charges be-
cause the charges put in on Nov. 9th,
1892, were finally disposed of by the dis
missal of the case against him on Nov.
4th, 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
duty in filing these objections. l have
only this further word that if the Pres
bytery shall decide against me l shall
proceed under protest and with the res
ervation of all legal rights OF securing
such redress in the higher courts as may
seem necessary"
The second section of Dr.. Briggs pro
test was against the irregularity 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.
II object to the amended charges in
that the nature of the original charges
has been changed. The original charges
called 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
dinal doctrine"-"That the scripture of
the Old and New Testamsnts are the
only infallible rule of faith and practice"
The amended charges aliege conflict
Westminster standards.
1.-THE 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 so amend these
charges as to cast out OF them
those eight new charges. If you adhere
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 them.
ssLet 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-
levers 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
sanctifcation after death came in con-
fiict, and this amended charge may be
regarded as such a statement. | waive
my objection to it and 1 consent to go
to trial on the eighth of the present
charges.
eff a minority should be convinced
that my teaching is in conflict with the
essential doctrine that Holy Scripture
is most necessary and another minority
composed of different persons should be
convinced that my teaching is in conflict
with the essential doctrine that Holy
Scripture is the rule of faith and prac>
tice,' these two minorities might become
a majority and vote me guilty if the
vote should be taken on the two charges
together, when majority of votes
would acquit me if a vote were taken on
each charge separately. 1t is my right
to insist that this new charge be stricken
out. At the same time / am entirely
willing1to be tried on this charge as a
separate charge, if the Presbytery so
desire.'
Professor Briggs then reviewed the
various charges at length, concluding as
follows:
AGAINST CHRISTIAN COURTESY.
81 ask the Presbytery if it is just, if it
is honorable, if it is in accordance with
oo,,r+acu nd cont pIU r,rO-