The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1893-01-03

sor that He wasa't Beaten on az
Least ono Copnt-He Loses the adj
VANTAGE of Being Appellant and
VIM Have a Hard Row to Hoeia
che General Assembly . The YAM
qpished Iikelytp Become yictoFs,
NEw YoRg, Jan. 2,-The result Of the
Rrlsgsheresy trial was a surprise to
both sides Of the famous theological
controversy which has disturbed the
Presbyterian church for two years. Dr.
Briggs made no effort to conceal from
histrlends his chagrip al the narrow
nessoI the majority by which the YER
diet was given, and the prosecuting
committee is rejoicing at the uaex,
pscted size Of the minority developed
on the crucial churga-that involving
thetrathtulness and inspiration Of the
Holy Scriptures, DIR, Briggs' dlsap'
pointment rests in the fact that the
presence on the inry Of his personal
friends Kept him from being convicted
cnall the charges.
These friends would have voted lof
Dir, Briggs at all hazards. One Is ms
brotheF,in!law, Elder j. Q, Lay. slx
Rre his fellow professors at the unton
Theological Seminary, four are directors
ofithat Institution, and on his account
they, have aided the seminary in sever
ing its relations with the Presbyterian
church. Others in tho court were
financially supported by tho rich, lay
directors Of the seminary, who made a
point Of the acquittal Of DR., Briggs.
Another cause OF disappointment to
Or. Briggs is that the victory was 80
complete as TO leave him without
ground for an appeal OF the case. Both
aidesrecognized early in the trial that
an appeal was absolutely certain, and
the evidence and argument were ar
fanged on both sides to that end alone.
Tho higher courts arc publicly known
to be strongly prejudiced against DR.,
Briggs, and the accused professor knows
his case will be roughly handled when
breaches these bodies. 1t would have
pleased DR.. Briggs to have had an
lhuYHgheiNQtellhb ns A4ssbytet VIZ VnS
or two Of the charges, with acqutttaIs
on the others. He would then have
been in tho position OF appellant before
the higher court, with all tho privileges
that come OF being in possession
OF the case. But every point
in the trial was decided in
Or, Briggs favor every point OF
constitutional law, OF procedure and on
tho ineritsof tho case. There Is Gbso.
lIitely nothing on which friends Of the
defendant Gun base an appeal. On the
contrary, the prosecuting committee
can 90 before the highest court at once
wilma strong minority OF tue Freshly
terry behind ii. 1t can have the case
reviewed on complaints and protests
by the Synod, or itScan haveit retired
blythe General Assembly which meets
in Washington next May. In both
these courts DIR. Birch and his commit
\ tee will have tho advantage. DIR.
Briggs must prepare to meet them in
anticipation OF what they will do. The
next General Assembly, ii 1t is con-
stituted like the last two which have
handled tile Briggs case, will be eight
ofteh To- one in favor OF casting out
Or. Briggs and his following,
Another thing that displeasos DR..
Briggs is the attitude ofthe majorltyon
the theological questions involved, DIR.
Francis Brown, Professor OF Hobrow at
the seminary, and Antonio Arreghi, an
Italian missionary, were the only ones
inttie court who did not make apollo
gies and excuses when they voted for
acduittal. Every one OF the ministers
who spoke to the charges, including tho
Seminary professors. In explaining their
votes, disayowed belief in the doctrines
OF Dr.. Briggs They declared that in
voting foracquittal they did not there-
by,express agreement with his theories.
One preacher, Henry 7. McEwen, de.
nlared that when he was student at
Union he had disagreed with DR., Briggs
inithe classroom, and that he still disa.
greed with him.
Accusation was created in tho secret
session when Dr. James II. McIlvaine,
Of the Church OF the Covenant, at
lrhirty.fftll street and Park avenue,
brought tho venerable conservative,
q Dr. w, N. Taylor, Of the Dutch Re.
formed church, into the case. He de-
clared that Dr.. Taylor had expressed
AGREEMENT and sympathy with the
views OF DR. Briggs on the point that
persons like James Martineau were &C.
coptablo Christians. DR.. Taylor Ia crit
ically i'll and cannot DO approached, but
his friends say that he could not have
held the Views attributed to him.
Dr. Henry Vandyke made objection
inlthe secret session to the, presence OF
the newspaper reporters, whom he saw