The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1893-01-05
PROF. BRIGGS WINS.

PROF. BRIGGS WINS.
The New York Pre.bytsry Vote. Asalns,
su'taiaise the Charges Of His Proseou.
tors. Us
New York. Dec. s1.-The session 81
The New York presbytery. which il
sitting as Q court on the trial Of Prof.
Briggs, was begun promptly at 2 O'Clock
Friday afternoon. Each member waa
allowed three minutes in which 10 ex:
press his views. = : -.s7- 'g s. s5s..
The voting on the first charge was
begun at o'clock and the vote on the
'ixth charge was completed and the
eresbytery adjourned shortly before 4
o'clock. The result OF. the several bal.
OTIS was then announced to the re.
,orters. The result was great sur.
Prise, for on all of the six counts the
'ote was adverse to sustaining the
charges. 81 : y y e." .-G.>
On tho first charge, accusing Prof.
Briggs of teaching that the reason is a
source of Divine authority, the vote
vas as follows: To sustain the charge.
10; against sustaining the charge, IS:
On the second charge, which aluses
Prof Briggs with charging that the
church is a source of Divine authority,
here were IS votes in favor Of sustain
ing the charge and u against.
The closest vote was on the third
charge, that Prot. Briggs taught that
The Scriptures contained errors of his.
DRY and fact. On this charge the vote
vas as follows: To sustain the charge.
II; against, 6s.
After this vote had been taken two
r three OF the anti-Briggs men left the
:ourt and others refrained from voting
IN the last three charges.
On the fourth charge, accusing Prot
Briggs with teaching that Moses was
lot the author of the pentateuch. the
esult was: To sustain the charges, IS;
against, 70.
The vote on the fifth charge, &C.
:using Prof. Briggs with teaching that
Isaiah did not write many of the chap
;ers in the book bearing his name was:
In favor of sustaining the charge, 40;
against, 70.
The vote on the sixth charge. accus-
ng Prof. Briggs of teaching that sane
atication is progressive after death,
vas as follows: TO sustain the charge,
u; against, 60.
The case will be appealed to the
general assembly, which will meet in
Washington early in the spring: The
assembly will appoint commission
consisting of fourteen unprecedented
members to act on the appeal
The friends of DR.. Briggs were great
v pleased with the result. They had
calculated on majority ranging from
our to six.
The movement against DR.: Briggs practi-
ally took its rise January 20, 1884, when he was
1ven the Edward Remsinon chair OF biblical
heology in the Union theological seminary
The alleged heretical doctrines he was &C.
used OF giving utterance to were culled from
lis inaugural address on that occasion. His
address, was severely criticised by many Pres
'yterian ministers in New York and by
numerous others attached to outside pres
'yteries. Several articles scoring him for the
'iews expressed were printed in religious jour-
aals. Demands were also made upon the New
York presbytery that summary anDasures Of
discipline be taken in DR. Briggs sase
The friends Of DR.. Briggs clslmed that the
real motive OF the attack IN Tim was to stop
he movement In favor of the revision OF the
reed. He had been one Of the foremost lead
RS OF the revisionlsts in the previous gen.
.ral assembly The anti-revisionists, it was
claimed, thought that il they could get
lin turned out Of the seminary and
hen out Of the church they, could make an
example OF him that would scare others who
leld the same views and kill revision at one
stroke. The New York presbytery met May
2, 1891. and after q stormy debate resolved that
DR.. Briggs should be tried for hereSy, and a
committee was appointed to prefer formal
charges.
The directors OF the Union theological SEM
mary propouhded questions to Dr. Briggs
which he answered to their satisfaction on
Nay 20, 1891, and they decided to stand by him.
The presentation of the charges was made
n June, 1891. At the meeting OF the general
assembly, held in Detroit, Mich, May q, 1891,
the committee on theological seminaries, to
which the whole matter had been referred,
presented its report condemning DR.. Briggs
and advising that his appointment to the chair
II biblical theology in Union theological
seminary be disapproved. After two lengthy
conferences by the committee of fifteen, APP
pointed by the Presbyterian general assembly
Detroit and the directors OF the seminary as
% the removal Of DR.. Briggs from his chair,
leld February II, 1892. they adjourned without
coming to any satisfactory understanding.
DR.. Briggs was arraigned before the New
York presbytery November Is, 1891, and it was
7oted to dismiss the charges against him with.
,ut trial.
His prosecutors appealed from this decision
to the next meeting OF the general assembly at
Portland, Ore, May 30, 1892 DR.. Briggs argued
lis case but the case was sent back to the pres
'ytery for trial.