Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1892-11-29
BRIGGS TRIAL
Again Being Held by New York
Presbytery.
Or. Briggs Makes an Extended Ad-
dress Directing to Proceedings.
submits That Ne Mas 0aee Been Tried and
Cleared Of All Charges.

| New YoaK, Nov. 2s--In the Briggs
trial today the moderator announced that
the objections of DIR. Briggs and his ex-
/ pressed purpose TO carry his objections TO
fthe synod should not be interpreted as OBJ
structions to trial He said he believed the
prosecuting committee was equally con-
| scientious.
| At 3 O'Clock Dr. Briggs began to read his
answer TO the charges as amended The
response was a most exhaustive summing
up of his defense and required two houl :
/ 10 deliver il. After stating that he had TO
personal desire TO delay the actual trial of
/ the charge against him on its strictest mer-
4 its, Dr. Briggs showed that il was necessary
| for him to act as his own counsel and IN
this capacity he had no right to pass over
| the techniealities or allow the presbytery to
establish dangerous or illegal precedents.
Dr. Briggs then made his first demurrer
to the trial of the present charges because
the charges put in his hands on November
8, 1882, were finally disposed of by the dis
misssl of the case against him November ~
1891, and that the presbytery could not
legally cite him second time to answer
charges which they had dismissed.
The second objection which DIR. Briggs
raised was TO the order and regularity OF
every proceeding in the presby,ery in any
action taken against him since the dismissal
of the original charges in 1891. He said
If the esbytery decides against me,
shall proceed, under protest, and with the
refervation of all legal rights of securing
such redress in higher courts as may seem
necessary
In the second section of his protest, DR..
Briggs dealt with the irregularity of the
amendments to the original charges. lie
pointed out that amendments TO the charges
by the law of the church are restricted to a
change in form, not to changes IN substance.
He then said Il object to the amended
charges that the nature of 'he original
charges have been changed. The original
charges called attention to the several doe
trines taught by me, which, as 1t was
claimed. were in conflict with the standards
The only doctrine of the standards with
which conflict Is alleged was cardinal doc
trine' and that the Scriptures of the old and
New Testainents are the only infailibie rule
of faith and practice,
The amended charges allege conflict with
the nine essential doctrines of Westminster
standards, as follows;
/. That the Holy Scripture is most
necessary.
9. That the Holy Scripture is the rule of
faith and practice.
;. That the Holy Scripture is the word
of God written.
4. That the Holy Scripture is immedi-
atcly inspired.
;. Thae God is true omnscient and un-
changeable.
4. That the Holy Scripture evidenced
itself to be the word of God by the consent
of all the parts.
Z. Thai the infallible rule of interpreta-
ton of the Scripture is the Scripture itself
X. That the processes of redemption are
limited to the world.
Q. That the souls of believers are at
their death at once made perfect in holi-
ness.
consent to 20 to trial on the eighth of
the present charges.
Dr. Briggs further said that charges SIX
and seven charged him with teaching dec
trines that he expressly disclamed and that
the specification made two serious changes
II sentence of bis inaugural address. Mr.
Lamper of the prosecuting committee,
answered Dr. Briggs objections and at
tempted to show the falsity of the defend-
dant's statement, that the general nature OF
the charges was charged in the amended
report He claimed the charges made were
effected III the interest of conciseness and
to meet the objections raised by DR.. Briggs
at his previous trial.
Dr. George Alexander of University
Place church, moved in consequence of the
objection made by the accused, that the
fourth and seventh charges of the amended
report be stricken out, DR.. Sutton offered
as an amendment that the objections of Dr.
Briggs were not well taken. DIR. Van Dyke
asserted that the amendment was out of
order. DIR. Sutton began an argument to
show that Dr. Briggs had never retracted
the statement of his address and that the
two charges were founded on that address.
He was interrupted by Rev. DIR. Paxton
Lawyer McCook proposed that the consid-
Grafton of the motion be postponed till to-
morrow. In the meantime the committee
would consider the defendants objection
and make whatever concessions it consist
entity could. A recess was then taken url-
till 2 O'Clock tomorrow afternoon.
Dr. Briggs then stated in detail his oh
jections 10 the other charges, claiming they
were virtually new charges.