New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-01-01
WHIT THE BRIGGS 1HTAL SUGGESTS.

WHAT THE BRIGGS THTAL SUGGESTS.
If, az is likely in the present state OF re-
| ligous unrest, heresy trials are 10 be at all
| common, it bchooves the denominations to see
that their judicial machinery is free from i'm
| PROJECTIONS. 1t has been the boast OF the Pies
| bytcrian Church that its method OF trying
accused clergymen cannot well be improved
upon but the trials of Professors Smith and
Briggs do not support this view of the case
Substantially the charge against these two men
was the samc-they entertained views concern
ing tho Bible which certain of their brethren
believed and still believe, to he in opposition
to the Standards of the Church. Now in what
way has their trial settled the question at issue?
A small majority of the Cincinnati PrcSbytery
has recorded itself as believing that Professor
Smith is heretica in his views and majority
not so small, OF the Ncw-Y0rk PreSbytcry. has
rccuded itself "a believing that Professor
Briggs is not hcrotcal in his views. Of these
two opposite decisions on the same question,
which represents the voice OF the Church
Or. what is molc important which IL in ac-
cordance with the essential facts? Nobody in
the Church is authorized to answer this ques-
ton and until il is answered nobody can say
Just what the Presbyterian Church thinks OF
the Bible We are aware that an appeal to
the General Assembly may settle the question.
But il is within the bounds Of possibility that IN
the two prcsbytcrics both sides might conclude
not to appeal the result Of which would be thai
a man declared to be u hereto in one Presby-
terry would be regarded aS orthodox in another
Prcsbytcry, and vice versa.
Another possibility in the Briggs case does
not seem fair to outsiders. Apparently the
Prosecuting Committee has the right - appeal
to higher count from the action of the Pres
bytely acquitting Professor Briggs. This is
as if the District Attorney were empowered to
appeal II a higher court when an accused man
whom he was trying was declared innocent by
the Jury lie does not have this power, be-
cause il would result in the injustice of trying
a man twice for the same offence, and it Is not
easy to understand why an ecclesiastical court
should have the right - do what the civil law
pronounces unjust.
Still again, the plan of turning a whole Pros
bytery into court has not worked well IN the
Briggs trial In great PreSbytcry like that
Of New oHl il is not possible for all the mem
beers to attend every session OF piotIarted
trial And, as rule. the men who are most
competent TO take part in trial are the ones
whose numerous other duties will preclude their
attendance IL is not fair to make a case
like that Of Professor Briggs 10 hinge on the
fact whether certain men will or will not he
able to attend the trial. No matter which way
the decision goes, il will always be possible
for the defeated party To say that the result
:s u.,,, -fn,-
had not been kept away by sickness in their
parishes Moreover, il is not possible for all
the members Of a Presbytery 10 have such
special knowledge Of the questions involved IN
a trial like that just ended in the Newly ork
Presbyteiy as will enable them to act intell-
gently as jurors. Besides, they may 20 into
the trial with prejudices which no amount OF
evidence could remove ana yet the votes OF
such men may decide a question that in
wolves not only the wcll-being. but the being
Of the Churh. This is manfesty unfair, not
only to the accused man, but 10 the Church
itself Equity demands that a man shall be
tried by his peers, which does not mean simply
that Professor Briggs ought To have been tried
by Presbytctans. but by Presbyterians who
were specialists in the great and profound ques-
tons which were at issue in the case.
While it is the general impression that the
opponents of DR.. Briggs, or DR. Briggs him.
self, will appeal the case, it would not be sur
pisng if the unexpected happened again, and
the matter was allowed to rest where it is.
For the conservatives must now begin to see
that Professor Briggs represents party in the
Church so large and influential that it cannot
possibly be dislodsed by driving out one or
more Of its leaders. Lane Seminary stands by
Professor Smith and asks an anti-Smith pro-
fessor 10 resign, SO that il he is a hereto it is
heretical. Union Seminary similarly stands by
DR.. Briggs and il it does not ask any anti
Briggs professors to resign il is because there
are none. And now the greatest Presbytery in
the Church acqIts him by substantial ma
jority, thus officially declaring that his views
of the Bible are not heretical. in face of tho
fact that he has never taken any pains to con-
cilate his opponents, but has seemed rather to
enjoy rubbing them the wrong way. The lc-
suit of the Briggs trial marks Il new era in the
Presbyterian Church.
UNREST or IHE WORLD.