Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1893-01-05
PROF.. BRIGGS WINS.
The New York Presbytery Votes Against
Sustsining the Charges OF His Prosecu-

the New York Prosbytery Votes Against
Sustaining the Charges Of His Prosecu-
tors.
NEW YORK. Dec. 31.-The session Of
The New York presbytery, which is
sitting as q court on the trial of Prof.
Briggs, was begun promptly at 2 o'clock
Friday afternoon. Each member was
allowed three minutes in which to ex-
press his views.
The voting on the first charge was
begun at o'clock and the vote on the
'ixth charge was completed and the
9resbytery adjourned shortly before 6
o'clock. The result of the several bal
OTIS was then announced to the re.
oorters. The result was a great SUR
prise, for on all of the six counts the
1ote was adverse to sustaining the
charges.
On the first charge, accusing Prof.
Briggs of teaching that the reason is a
iource of Divine authority, the vote
vas as follows: To sustain the charge.
10; against sustaining the charge, 6s.
On the second charge, which accuses
Prof. Briggs with charging that the
church is source of Divine AUTHORITY.
there were IS votes in favor of sustain
ing the charge and II against.
The closest vote was on the third
charge, that Prof Briggs taught that
The Scriptures contained errors of his
ory and fact. On this charge the vote
vas as follows: To sustain the charge.
81; against, g.
After this vote had been taken two
'r three OF the anti Briggs men left the
court and others refrained from voting
IN the last three charges.
On the fourth charge, accusing Prof.
Briggs with teaching that Moses was
aot the author of the pentateuch, the
'esult was: To sustain the charges, 53;,
against, 70.
The vote on the fifth charge, ac-
;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
lication is progressive after death,
vas as follows: To sustain the charge,
u; against, SO.
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
Jour to six.
The movement against DR.. Briggs practi-
ally took it's rise January 20, 1891, when he was
;iven 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
Tiews expressed were printed in religious Jour-
,als. Demands were also made upon the New
York presbytery that summary sneasures of
discipline be taken in DR. Briggs Ease.
The friends Of Dr. Briggs clslmed that the
real motive Of the attack IN him was to stop
The movement in favor of the revision of the
freed. He had been one OF the foremost lead
IFS OF the revsionsts in the previous gen.
.ral assembly The anti-revisionists, it was
claimed, thought that if they could get
lin turned out of the seminary and
hen out of the ch Irch they could make an
example of him that would scare others who
leld the same views and kill revision at one
Itroke. The New York presbytery met May
2, 1891, and after stormy debate resolved that
Dr.. Briggs should be tried for heresy, and
committee was appointed to prefer formal
charges.
The directors Of the Union theological SEM
mary propounded 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 e. 1891,
the committee on theological seminaries, to
presented its report condemning DR.. Briggs
and advising that his appointment to the chair
IT biblical theology in Union theological
seminary be disapproved After two lengthy
conferences by the committee of fifteen, ap
pointed by the Presby general assembly
If Detroit and the directors of the seminary as
10 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 l5 1891, and it was
voted 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 80, 1892. DR.. Briggs argued
lis case but the case was sent back to the pres
,ytery for trial.