New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-11-05

entitled "SpecincauOn" but, In Idct, there u no
specification whatever but only the general statement:
In the said inaugural address, delivered, published,
extensively circulated, and repubshed as above dc
scibed Dr. Briggs teaches as follows" Up. 39). Turn
ing 10 Charge We ind That statement corresponding
this is made as tue second secuoh OF the charge
Place the TWO side by side ana this Will be evident
CHARGE 1. sPECIIFIecATI9Y OF
These hurtlul errors CHAfGE H.
strning nj the yltais OF re In tae SAID inaugural
liiOn aDd contrary 10 the address. delivered. pub
rrsulat oAs ana pracice # lshed extensively crcu
Ile lrcsDy terlan Cburcn lated, and unpublished
we're promulgated in an aUo e described, Dr. briggs
inaugural adIress which teaches as follows (p. 3sl
Lr. Brsgs deiv,red at tie
Union Ihe~ioei> al semi
nary in INC Guy vi New
loFk January 20 1891,
the occasion Oh his in
uuCliOn into the Eawaid
hOoilSon CHAIR of bibncal
theology, which address
has, VITA Dr. Briggs ap-
prevail been published and
ox.ensivIy circulated. and
pu.lsDed i'll a second
edition, with preface
and an aLp,ndlx ". 81.
Ii such statement belong to Charge !, it does not
belong 70 inc 81 II Charge Il NOT
poIdng to the statement made IdeI Cn ma
vioas the references under the head of
Inaugural Addrs>s" are part Of the p0if; mere
This socalled specification is heaPng up Of extracts
from six pages Of the Lnausural Address shall aa,
Obecton is laaen 10 their proprety in the speciiie
On or TO their relevancy under the charge the de-
Il
te verdict which might be rendered against hum on The
basis of any Of the thirty four verses OF scripture
ciIed any clause Of the several extracts from 'ne
There is nothing whatever in the specification. 1t
makes no specification of fact such as could be al
mtted reiuted. II the specification had pointed to
any erroneous doctrine taash, by me- If had been been
baton whatever after death might have pointed to
Ssi1 e % wsn e T Soene ss Of S9o
been imputed, regeneration after death or tran 81
ton after death from the state OF the condemned 70 Ve
sfl of :
been disproved from my writing any nsn aasmeS
enter the Mldie state guilty and sinful this could
easily have been refued But no such dootes are
There is nothing in the specification that can be tested
the defendant or chsenged by o the and
here The doctrine angh, u the
doctrine alleged TO be in conflict with 1t is immediate
sanctifcaton at death. /. .,..,,.
On that immediate sanctifcstlon at death taught in
the scriptures and the Standards ~ that IL Is car
dIna doctrine of the Westminster Confession ana go
that the two doctrines are lrreconcable conflict with
each other ere the Presbytery would De Justine III
do not make definite issue. They pnt the charge and
specification in such an obscure indefinite ana empty
tage in pleading, and the jurors may be justified In
voting condemn, On any plausible ground that may
views Of the future state expressed in the inaugural
address IN conflict with their own views OF scripture
| u-sPECIFICATIoN s OF CHARGE I.
Having disp of the specification under Charge ii,
we may devote attention to the seven speci-
! cations of Charge l. These specifications may be
| grouped under several heads shall review them In
an der more suitable my purpose than that Of the
report itself. l shall first consider specification 8
2) specifications 1 and g. 90 specifications 2, and
a., specification 7. The first of the specifications
| to which 1 object is specification 8
DR.. Briggs makes statements in 'egard to the Holy
Scriptures which cannot be reconc led with The doc
trine OF the tue and full inspiration Of those Scriptures
| as the word Of God written" Up. 21).
II should now be kept distinctly in mind that a
specification must contne Itself to setting forth the
facts relied upon 10 sustain the charge (sec 1o) 1ils
specification does not STATE fact, but mates an
viii be clear If compares This specification with
Charges do snG vbea sncls C6srss II alleges
hat ne teicnes dOctaine OF The cirractor stae ana
sancdhcation Of believers aier aatds @c9 con.I. t
| in regard the Holy Scriptures when c:hno. DC
| really as much OF d charge as Charges ! and II and
| .as been Improperly brought under Charge l. Bu,
agts Of the her Charges This specicauon used
The plural "saJemen.s,' involving several Offences
ments in regard to the Holy scripture it designed
10 alege against me- Placing tins spociicanon side
ton cannot be brought under Charge Tor deals
With different doctrine In Charge the cardinal
Testaments are the only nfsllble rule Of faith and
na &c the hrs, OF TAG terms Of subscription, is tho
tHs specl6cat ii Is the and full inspiration
III Holy scrip ure ae the Word oil O0d written" (COn
fesslon OF Faith, y, aganst wiheh onche~ IL aneeed
These two DOCTRINES may be brought under The general
doctrine Of Holy scripture, but the one oil these
dnurfnAs cannot be brought under lie 0tlcr. There
fore specification Is irrelevant " Charge j.
When one compares this report with Its charges
and specifications with the report OF the cOmnitteo 10
examnr the inaugural address, made To The Presbytery
In May last recognizes that the Chairman and the
majority Of both committees are the same, one Is
rntled 10 ask how they can reconcile The two reports
What they then in their rst report MADE he1r second
arge and what they then argued as tlflr pfqncipa!
offence. namely the offence AGAINST tne ineriacS "a
te original autographs OF scripture, has been reduced
n ,Lls W port TO a specification under Charge Here
wa definite dslinot difference OF doctrine as TO the
nerrncy Of scripture. which siluld have been foi1i
lated into definite char with speclflcatiODs so us
the PresbyteIy might the question Docs the
| original autographs OF Holy Sc1pturcf The charge
| definitely made and argued last May mas been de
| pIecaied In this report 10 has Dcch supoiuilatea
as specification under a different charge III has been
QUO ed in u gen raj obscure ami IND mite lfoguage
as 10 enable juror 10 vote on the direct question
Of the nerrncy OF the original autographs OF scripture
but 10 induce him 10 vote the dendant 9ulitf "a
gene al charge for private reasons OF oOlecuui
against his doctrine OF the Bible, whatever uey may Dc
Specification ought to be restored " Us onel,al
place as given In Jhc report O1 INC cNnnittc " Vno
i'rosbytery In MAY last ard made distinct charge
and 10 should state definitely the issuc ihvoiNso,
namely what doctrine Is 1t that Dr: Bi1ggs teaches
that Ii irrecOncabe with the cardinal uoclrihe, VI
scripture and Confession 10 The inerrailcy CT HOY
scripture is ca dinal doctrine of Holy scilPIure
-oripture inerrant? II such definite charge
| had been made then the Ptsbytery could tesi
NELL gently and decide with precision
| II.-sPBCFICATIoN 1 AND OF CHARGE
Specifications / and O may be considered together
/ .xHt Tho niC