The Middleburgh post. [volume] (Middleburgh, Snyder Co., Pa.) 1883-1916, 1893-06-08
DIR. sRIoos FOUND GUILTY.
The Assembly sustains the Heresy
Charge Against Him.

hoA 80 hkuihht hluus
The Presbyterian General Assembly in
'ession at Washington, ID. c., sustained the
,ppeal OF the Prosecuting Committee from
he verd C, OF the New York Presbytery.
which acquitted DR.. Briggs Of the charge OF
| sefesy. This Is equivalent TO a verdict OF
,eresy against Prof. Briggs. or the total Of
's9 votes cast, 2gs were TO sustain the ap.
peal, So to sustain it in part, making total
u 1888 to sustain, and ll6 not to sust in.
committee will now be appointed 10
| prepare a minute for su bm ssion TO the
ieneral Assembly prescribing the punish.
nent to be meted out. There are FIVE things
he General Assembly can do. Admonish.
'ebuke, suspend, depose from the ministry
'r cxpel Prof Briggs from the church. One
81 the last three courses is likely to be fol-
lowed.
THE GROUNDS or ArPrAL
There were five grounds Of appeal and 3,
ipeciications Each OF these specifications
vas voted upon singy. At the end OF the
voting on these the roll was 20 be called
upon the general questions. Shall the appeal
be sustained and IL was
The whole day was spent in three m mute
speeches on Dr. Briggs case. Nearly all
he leading commissioners took part in the
debate The first voice raised In favor OF
Dr, Briggs was that Of the Rev. Charles
Fuller, OF the Presbytery ofGunnison. Col.
With vigorous language he asserted that in
his opinion DR., Briggs's language was mis-
, understood.
Then he added that the words of Jesu.
were also misun derstood. and that the
Christian church to day Is divided on the
Interpretation OF the words OF Christ, This
is my body IL wa. Just ~ reasonable. he
added. to complain that Christ did not speak
more clearly. ~ TO bring such charge
against Or. Briggs.
The venerable Dr. Smith. Of Baltimore.
expressed the belief that the appeal should
be sustained. while the com missioners from
this city. the Rev. Joseph I. Kelly and
John Randolph, ranged themselves ON the
same side.
As the call Of the roll by synods went on,
ministers and elders arose and gave their
opinion OF Dr. Briggs, and the character
and influence of his teachings.
-Four members Of the Synod Of Illinois
spoke against sustaining the appeal DR.
Herrick JOhnson's speech was fOrcible and
clear, The Rev. Thomas c. Hall took oc-
casion to explain that his fathers name had
been maintained among those who favored
the prosecution. while he had expressed no
opposition 20 the proceeding In writing
A change Of views was announced by the
Rev. John W. Pugh, d. d.. Of the Bloom
ineton, Ill.,, rresby,ery lie said he had
voted against entertaining the appeal, but
after hearing DIR. Briggs defence he had
concluded that Il was merely special pl cad
ing and avoided the issues. A rather blunt
alternative WAS presented by the Rev. John
;. Hays. ID. d.. the blind preacher of Ken.
tucky, which was that DR.. Briggs's doctrines
would have to be made part Of the stand.
ards Of the church. or else Dr. Briggs
would have TO leave the church.
A n.
as party from further attendance at the
session. He looked tired and sad. The
request was granted amid considerable ex.
ctement.
The debate closed at 10 p. m. when the
vote was taken. After its announcement
explanatory minutes, and the session ad.
iodrned.