Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1893-01-07
PROF. BRIGGS WINS.
The New York Presbytery Votes Against
Sustaining tho Charges OF His Proscou-
tor

The New York Presbytery Votes Against
Sustaining tho Charges OF His Prosccu-
tors.
New YORK, Dec. 31.--The session Of
the New York presbytery, which is
sitting as n court on the trial of Prof.
Briggs, was begun promptly at . 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
sixth charge was completed and the
presbytery adjourned shortly before o
o'clock The result of the several bal
lots was then announced to the re-
porters. The result was a great sur
prise, for on all OF the six counts the
vote was adverse to sustaining the
charges.
On the first charge, accusing Prof.
Briggs of teaching that the reason is
source of Divine authority, the vote
was as follows: To sustain the charge,
80; against sustaining the charge, 6S.
On the second charge, which accuses
Prof. Briggs with charging that the
church is n source of Divine authority,
there were 55 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
tory and fact. On this charge the vote
was as follows: To sustain the charge,
81; against, 6S.
After this vote had been taken two
or three of the anti-Briggs men left the
court and others refrained from voting
on the last three charges
On the fourth charge, accusing Prof.
Briggs with teaching that Moses was
not the author of the pentateuch, the
result was: To sustain the charges, So;
against, ~.
The vote on the fifth charge, ac-
| cusing Prof Briggs with teaching that
| Isaiah did not write many of the chap
| ters in the book bearing his name was:
In favor of sustaining the charge, 40;
| against, 20.
The vote on the sixth charge, accus-
ing Prof. Briggs of teaching that sane
tification is progressive after death,
was as follows: To sustain the charge,
81; 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
ly pleased with the result. They had
calculated on majority ranging from
four to six.
The movement against DR.. Briggs practi
caly took its rise January 20, 1891, when he wat
| given the Edward Remsinon chair of biblical
theology in the Union theological seminary
| The alleged heretical doctrines he was ac
| cused of giving utterauce to were culled from
| his inaugural address that occasion. Hi.
| address severely criticised by many Pres
| byterian ministers in New York and b.
numerous others attached to outside pres
| byteries Several articles scoring him for TIL,
views expressed were printed in religious jour
nails. Demands were also made upon the New
| York presbytery that summary measures o
discipline be taken in DR. Briggs case.
The friends Of DR.. Briggs claimed that tn,
real motive of the attack on him was to stol
the movement in favor of the revision of th
creed. He had been of the foremost lead
ers of the revisousts in the previous gen
eral assembly. The anti-revisionists it wa
claimed, thought that if they could ge
him turned out of the seminary an
then out Of the church they could make a
example of him that would scare others VIII
held the same views and kill revision al on
stroke. The New York presbytery met Ma
II, 1891, and after stormy debate resolved tina
DR.. Briggs should be tried for heresy, and
committee was appointed to prefer forma
charges
The directors of the Union theological SEN
mary propounded questions to DIR. Brigg
which he answered to their satisfaction o
May 20, 1891, and they decided to stand by hin
The presentation of the charges was mad
In June, 1891. AT the meeting of the genera
assembly, held in Detroit, Mich, May 81, lS9
the committee on theological seminaries, t
| which the whole matter had been referred
presented its report condemning DR.. Brigg
and advising that his appointment to the chai
of biblical theology in Union theoogici
seminary be dsapproved. After two length
conferences by the committee of fifteen, ~
pointed by the Presbyterian general assembl
| of Detroit and the directors of the seminary u
to the removal of DR.. Briggs from his chail
held February IL, 1892, they adjourned withOu
coming to any satisfactory understanding,
DIR. Briggs was arraigned before the Ne
York presbytery November Is, 1891, ana it wa
7oted TO dismiss the charges against him will
out trial.
His prosecutors appealed from this decisio
to the next meeting of the general assembly d
Portland, Ore May so, 1892 DR.. Briggs argue
| his case but the case was sent back To the pre-
bytery for trial