Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-06-01
A Famous Dispute Before the
General Assembly.
THE DOCTOR IN HIS OWN BEHALF
A Vigorous Presentation OF
His Controversy.


ana mas Depll raging luFlplSlN Ill lTtsDN'
terian Church circles. II originated in an
January 10Th, 1891, upon the occasion of
his induction into the Edward Robinson
chair Of Biblical Theology, at the Union
Theological Seminary in this city, This
address was vcrtablc bombshcll in HE
camp of the church as il cmbudied the
advanced and liberal thought and advo-
Gated principles regarded rs heretical.
DR.. Briggs, among other things, declared
that there were three great Fountains Of
divine authorty--thG Bible, the church
and reason. He held that the Bible rs Il
book, was paper print and binding and
nothing more, divine only in its con-
ception and not in style or words, and he
set forth firmly the idea of progressive
sanctitication after death.
Immediately after the delivery Of this
address the matter was brought before The
Iresbvtery Of New York and on April
18th. 1891, a committee was appointed TO
prepare evidence against Or. Briggs and
bring the charges before the PrtShvturN.
Dr. Briggs submitted his defence Novem-
her 9Th, III which he rctraCtcd none Of the
statements ia his address The PrcsbYtery,
upon hearing both the report and the de-
fence, decided by a vote OF 81 to - to dis
miss the CasG
More than 100 leading ministers and
members Of the church IN New York inn
:nGdately signed u complaint 70 the Cen
Gral Assembly Of the Presbyterian church,
asking for 4 second trial upon technical
grounds The Assembly remanicd the
case back to the prcsbytcry Of New York
for trial, and the rresbvtcry acquitted Dr.
Briggs of the charge of hercsy
The prosecutors of the charge lmme'
diatcly set abont taking the case % the
General Assembly, now sitting at Wash
ington. Dr. Briggs and his friends con-
tended that this was All impronrr proceed
ing and that an appeal should lay to the
Synod Of this state, which meets at
Rochester in Octubcr,
WAsE1NGrON, May 2i-The Briggs case
came up before the General Assembly this
afternoon and rs was anticipated drew
an immense crowd to the building,
The moderator having opened with
PRAYER and formally convened the Assem-,
bly as a court, br. Baker reported that the
judicial committee unanimously recon-
mended that the prosecuting committee be
allowed one hour to open its case; that i've
hours be given to Professor Briggs, and
that the committee be given two hours in
which to close, to be extended, if desired,
to four hours.
Dir. Briggs then assembled the platform
and said that he regretted to have TO ask
for more time. His argument On the basl,
of the printed appeal would, he said, Uc
cupy four and d, half hours and he al
lowed himself half an hour to reply to
any arguments which he may not have
anticipated.
The request of the professor was granite,
by the moderator and then Dir. W. f.
Birch, chairman of the prosecuting com
mittee, took the floor. Promising his ad
dress with a comparison between the
action of the apostolic council with re
spect to the appeal Of Paul and Baruahas
and this appeal Of the committee OF prose
cution, lac went on to specify the error
charged against DIR. Briggs which, he said,
related:
/. 10 the question as 10 the supreme
and only authority in matters of faith ant
practice.
2. 10 the question as to the inerrancy ~
truthfulness of the inspired word Of God
3, TO the historical validity OF the Olt
Testament.
4. AS TO the fultilment Of Nlcssiani'
prediction-a question Of supreme import
ance in its bearing upon the view which =
taken OF the truthfulness of scripture ant
OF the truthfulnGss Of God.
B. There Is the doctrine of redemption
concerning which it has been alleged tina
Professor Briggs teachings have bcci
especially erroneous and hurtiu, bu
which could only be partially tried in tn
lower court.
These DR.. Birch stigmati2ed as scrie
OF errors covering the fundamental struc
tllre Of the Presbyterian faith, He thci
Went on to say that of those who have sup
ported Dir. Briggs, whether from pulpit
press or seminary not one in one liludre,
would subscribe to the inaugural address
all of which proved that DR.. Briggs di
not properly represent the fundamental
theological opinions OF the Presbyterian
Church
3l5 o'clock Or. Briggs arose to reply
to the opening of the prosecuting com
mittee and to protest against thc entertain
ing of the appeal by the hrneral Assem-
bly,. 10 this latter point the professor mrs
devoted his attention. He cnhlcnded, il
the first instance, that the language OF III
appeal obviously included something be
sides the final Judgment Of the i'rcsbylGr
and until this eNtraneollS matter hau Deei
taken from the appeal the General Assem-
bly, could not entertain it. llr. HrisGs ~
serted, in the next place, that the lini
judgment Of the lresbytcry III, his cas-
was really declared by the moderator o
the New York presbytCry OH lJecemDc
Both, 1892, and from that appeal sh0uld b
taken ii from any action ul the l'resbN
terry, and not from action on january 9Ih
1913.
Having disposed of these objections I
the appeal being entertained lir brl@S
went on to say that much more lundH
mental question was at stake than an.
principle of law or doctrine that had yc
been discussed. That was whether til
Presbyterian Church should be Cunsidele
as a merely voluntary religious society q
church of Jesus Christ. IL was the civ
law of the land. he said, that NJ ma
should be twice tried for the same OilenG'
The New York l'resbytcry, under order
of the General Assembly, tried him l'
the crime of heresy and acquitted hiE
Was the Presbyterian Church ready !
tgnore or violate that Well'settled prncip
found by centuries Of observation and e.
perience to be essential to the Well-beln
of the people without good and suiiiciet
cause?
Dir. Briggs then discussed the law Of AZ
peals. This, he asserted, could be INVOKE
only by parties original to the case and ~
Brleyed parties, The new Book OF DisG
pline did not contain the word "aggrieved,
he admitted, but in spirit the rlghL ol al
peal was confined to those who were n
Brieved Was II prosecuting commiLt'
Buch an asgrleved party as 10 warrant
IN appealing from an adverse Judgment
The case against the defendant was not
litigation between two private parties Al
The right Of appeal inherent in one peTsoi
eliy agsriered, could not be claimed by
Pubilc prosecutor. Inc elehuenCS OF pFac'l,
Everywhere at all times had been to sui
jtitute the public wrong for private wron
until the latter had been almost who'll
llbmcrsed in the ocean OF public wron
in this regard ecclesiastical law mad deve
pped more reslowly than had civil law. prva
prosecutors were still permitted to pres
bute before church tribunals with the riS
II being punished should they fail 10 9
hblish The charges against brother or
lhureh.
In such case the right OF appeal IL