St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-11-29
DR.. Briggs Appears Before
the Court in His Own
Defense.
lie Claims That the Charges
Have Been Changed Only
in Form.
Prof. Smiths Objections to
Charges Of Heresy Voted
Down.

TOuIttcllti SlItcG. NV. JOLH ~ Dlioo,
pastor of the Washington Heights
church, has been selected as mod
orator. and only those mem
bers who attended the ecclesiastical
court two weeks ago will be per
mitted to serve as judges VI jurors. The
gallery and part of the body of the
church was set aside for outside minis
tiers and other interested churchmen
who secured admission tickets in ad-
vance.
Prof. Briggs conducted his own de-
fence, aided by Prof. Brown, Of the
Union Theological seminary, and Rev.
Ii. III. Field.
The memorable sermon which the
presbytery objects to was delivered by
DR.. Briggs Jan. 20, 1891, and was the
inaugurating address at the Union Theo-
logical 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 standard
Presbyterian doctrine. After roll call
at o'clock DR.. Briggs began to read
his answer.
His Own Counsel.
DR.. Briggs began by stating that he
appeared before the presbytery of New
York i'll consequence with citation
dated Nov. last. He quoted the book
of discipline to the effect that the de-
fendant had right to make such
objections to the form of the charges or
tn nff
larity as he thought fit. After
stating that he had no personal desire
to delay the actual trial of the charge
against him on its strict merits. DR..
Briggs showed that it was necessary
for him to act as his own counsel, and
in this capacity he had 10 right to pass
over technicalitles or to allow the pres
bytery to establish dangerous or illegal
/ presidents.
Il cannot yield to the Impotence of
friends on one side or the crowding OF
enemies OH the other side"
Dr.. Briggs then made his first de-
murrer to the trial OF the present charge
|. because the charge put into his hands
on Nov 9, 1892, was finally disposed OF
by the dismissal Of the case against him
Oh Nov. 4, 1891, and that the presbytery
I could not legally cite him a second time
f! mismiSsed. The second objection
i which DR.. Briggs raised was to the
} order and regularity of every proceed
| ing in the preSbytery in any action
against him since the dismissal of
The Original Charge
T in 1891. DR.. Briggs then said:
| ut is not for me to advise the presby-
| terry what course they should pursue. L
1,,tx
| lions. have only this further word,
that. if the Presbytery shall decide
against me. shall proceed under pro-
| test and with the reservation of all
| legal rights of securing such redress in
| the higher courts as may seem neceS
Sary."
| The second section of DR.. Briggs pro-
| test dealt with the irregularity of the
! amendments to the original charge. He
| pointed out that amendments to charges
| by the law of the church are restricted
| to change in form and not to change in
| substance. Part of Dir. Briggs response
was as follows:
| Il object to the amended charges that
| the nature of the original charges have
| been changed. The original charges
| called attention to several doctrines
| taught by me. which, as it was claimed,
| was in conflict with the standards. The
only doctrine Of the standards with
which conflict was alleged was the
| cardinal doctrine that Scriptures of
the Old and New Testaments are the
| only infalIible rule of faith and prac-
| tice.
1.-The amended charges allege conflict
with nine essential doctrines of the
| Westminster standard as follows:
| Holy Scripture is most necessary; that
| Holy Scripture is
! The Rule of Faith
J and practice: that Holy Scripture is the
(! word of God written; that Holy Scrip
ture is inspired; that God is true, ON
niscient and Interchangeable; that Holy
| Scripture evidences itself to be the
| Word OF God, by the consent of all
parts; that the infallble rule of inter-
| probation of Scripture is the Scripture
! itself; that the processes of redemp-
| ton are limited to this world; that tile
| souls of believers are at their death at
| once made perfect in holiness.
The amended charges therefore al
| lege that my teachings conflict with
| nine different doctrines of the West
| minister standard. The original
| charges allege conflict with only one
| doctrine which is included as one of
nine. Therefore it is evident that the
! general nature of the original charges
is changed 10y the introduction of eight
| new charges. L might ask the preSby-
| terry to follow the direction of the gen
! eral assembly and the law of the book
| of discipline, and SO amended these
! amended charges as to cast out Of them
1 these eight new charges"
Objects to Two Charges.
| In conclusion Dr.. Briggs says:
Il ask the preSbytery,i in view of these
| disclaimers, if it is just. if it is honor
able, if it is in accordance with Chris
| tianity and gentlemanly proprlety for
| the prosecution to make such charges
against me ? They put you in diem
ana. Either you must challenge my
I yeracity or you must permit them
to present proof that my
I explanations of my teachings are err0-
Ianeous. and that their explanations must
be accepted as true. If you wish to
! challenge my veracity, you should DO it
Iounder moral charge; you cannot do it
| under doctrInal charge. If you per-
Iomit them to make such explanations,
IL YOU will engage i'll illegal pro-
.cedure, for according to the de-
Icision of the supreme court of
I the church in the CraigiIead case, no
! man can rightly be convicted Of heresy
by inference or Implication 1t is rot
right to charge any man with an opinion
/ which he disavows. For these reasons
| object to charges ". and H., and
demand of the presbytery that they
| comply with tile law Of the church. and
| reject them from the list of charges"
Or. Briggs requests tine presbytery to
| pass upon tie
Preliminary Objections
in accordance with the book of dscip-
line. which says: The jndicatory.
upon the filing OF objection, shall, or its
motion. may determine all such pre-
Isllminary objections"
| 1t was 4 O'clock when DR.. Briggs fin
| ished his response, after which Rev.
DR.. j. j. Lamp, OF the prosecuting COM
Inittee, answered Dir. Briggs. and re-
proved him for calling the prosecuting
| committee tickle for the numerous
| changes in the indictments WHEN hr. by
!! hi, objections, MAS the eau OF all the
] ALTERATIONS lhas have ueeu luada. pr.