Democratic Sentinel, Volume 17, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 June 1893 — DR. BRIGGS A HERETIC. [ARTICLE]

DR. BRIGGS A HERETIC.

RUCH IS THE VERDICT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. After a Long and Exciting Session the Finding of the New York Presbytery Is Overruled—All Crop. Reported Very Backward. A Decisive Majority. Despite his masterly defense and the heroio efforts of his friends, the enemies of Dr. Charles A. Briggs triumphed in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at Washington, and the appeal from the verdict of the New York Presbytery aoquitting him of the charge of heresy was su-stained by a vote of 383 to 116. The Clerk announced that 499 men responded to their names on the final roll-call. Of these 116 voted not to sustain the appeal, 85 to sustain In part (which Is equivalent, however, In the summing up to sustain), and 298 voted to sustain wholly, making the vote 383 to 116. Dr. Briggs was not present when the voting was taking place, as he had been excused' by the Moderator, at his own request, from the morning session, giving as his reason the fact that ho had become very weary from the long sessions. Dr. Brown sat at the table and recorded the vote for his own purpose, while in the galleries, one of the most interested of the hundreds of people who crowded the church, sat Professor Smith, of Cincinnati, pencil and rollcall in hand. Thirty-four votes were taken, one for each specification, tefore the roll was called. All the specifications under the first, second, third and fifth grounds of the appeal were sustained. Two under the fourth ground were lost. These relate Ito the charge that Dr. George Alexander, Rev. Mr. Arreghi, Dr. Henry M. Field of the Evangelist, President Hastings of Union Seminary and Dr. Henry Van Dyke made speeches at the Presbytery trial taking the manifestations of prejudice. The other specification lost was that Professor Brown, Dr. Field, Dr. Hastings, Dr. Van Dyke and Dr. J. H. Mcllvaine took part in the trial after manifestations of prejudice in the conduct of the case. T hree or four of the specifications were sustained by apparently so close a vote that the commissioners were counted. The one relating to the directors, officers and professors of the seminary who had voted to acquit Dr. Briggs in the presbytery was sustained by a vote of 233 to 234. The members of the New York synod voted almost solidly against sustaining the appeal, which was a vote for Dr. Briggs. One of the professor’s able supporters, who did not wish to speak for publication, said that the present was only the beginning of tho trouble.