New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-11-05
PART II.
NOV. 5, 1891.
DIRECTIONS OF DIR. BRIGGS.
MS FORMAL ANSWER IN THE TRIAL.

- N the presbytery in his tria for heiesy, OF
-. report Is made elsewhere In The Tribune ths
morning .,.o
.opear before you at this time in compliance lance
VIA Charges ana specifications placed III my haios
a Ss rresoytery al tha time it - now san my IA
Se objections" If have any 70 ,ny resa tSs
Inc organization, OF W te "f tSa charSao
iuacA.os;sacIions in form " d legal effect, OF any
ana spNnns,,,ntil objection affecting the oroer OF
regularity % % ohecons 70 the regularity of the organ:
navy =" M I've lurisdic ion Of the Presbytery OF
aauoDn hut il is necessary, both IN my own IN
Newiern' the interest Of the order and regularity
,es. spdciai proceedings in the rresby terry to ME
q Wy 20 the insuincieDcy OF the Cmrses anu
ooleS acatons in form" and In legal enecI. ,.,
y AR from my purpose 10 raise ay OBJECTIONS
teenin a DELAY the probation of charges that are
or laS a. sulnoient, and speclhcauons that are
ssold reevant BY te Yin, REQUIRES that
but the ore ~ relevancy should nrst be decided by
u gs Presbytery, before l can "i'h p''p'io'' P-'"N
guilty OF n contse thus recommended, do hereby
Az Se following objections 70 inc t i ~
charges and specifications III ioril anu -, 1 ,,,or,
sDa,e nort Of the committee Of the PTesDyery
ine sdeor,ad the charges aud specifications con-
Nn az nreambie inunlatiOn of charges and specl
s-,,o0s which they have not proposed for trial. US
follows: r ,Dr.NerE
II has been deeiGed by your eonttee us9 ~ ~ liz
nesio .-.S An ihe dOctlinal errors contained III liie
s ~ address anu. While us teachings NePeee
r,-srs the original oOnulllOh Vi man, .ie ~ JiS
hli"e.oS, soemIglon ana Dr. Briggs scheme OF BID
s sa neo,ogy mi general are not III harmony Win t.e
Ssntnres and are calculated 10 ~eaAeh cohhuen0u
senpuiWSS Nd of God and 10 encourage presumption on
~ cIsmepcy and long suffering OF OoI, YET III oiuer
that We may avoid an uhuue eA'oSio t s o an M
and the CONFUSION Of thought that misn. toio Ia OF
sn, 10 compass al the errors contained III s'aiu a
Snss we deemed IL best 10 ooihe
hSoS are fundamental TO the entire discussion.
Furthermore, your Committee Is not ulniiiaiui VI
the ac tai the eTr0neou and III advised " aoes VI
the -s in tine Inaugural addr have SERIOUSLY dis
thad M D ace Of the church anu d 10 SITUATION
tn ~ dfheulty and complications and have prodaced
Iu U, as-nr,sd uneasless and agitation throughout
sSs cInrn a. 10 cause Sxty-thr.e pesDy Ierles 70
overture the General Assembly, WIN reicIenV ~ ~ az
trnined not TO include this grave offence asdsl tne
peace Of the Church in the list OF formal oharses pp
l. 81. am
ob,eet on that II there are any such errors con-
famed in nv inaugural address the committee alege
in The preamble of their report 1t was their duty 10
formulate them into charges and SPECIFICATIONS suh-
Gent in form and IN legal effect
t21 That the committee did not think best so to
d. they should have reiraned from alleging doctrihai
errors which they Gid propose TO submit TO proDa
ton and which alleged without opportunity Oh
reputation seem CALCULATED to XII prejudice against
me in Lss mind o. the members 0l lac court
90 That Il, as the report ALLEGES Tue erroneous
anu iadvsei uttcanceo Dr. BrosS In the inaugural
adars IS nave seriously disturbed LAe peace OF Ilo
Churcn,s a,d these Constitute grave ohohc- aohss
he peace OF the Cha.ch, II was duIy Oh the com
mite 70 formulate TINS grave nto charge and
specification "sAlAcicAt IN form ana III Ie1.u eIeCS
al Ina If it was not deemed best so 10 DO, me
rep0rt should have relr;Ineu from alleging gfaVer
offence which not proposed for oioDauoi, ue
allegations OF which might prejudice the decision
Of use charges and specifications offered ioi pro-
BATON. ., -. -. liz. o,,t
from the report these inslnuations ana lnpulaohS
OF doctrlnal errors and grave offence -
If have in any way, directly or indirectly. been
sion M dis 4
deeply regret it. If 1 have gwen pain and anxiety
to my brethren in the ministry or 70 tne people oi
address am sorry. But after repeated rereadings OF
the address away from the seat OF stIfe III foreign
land cannot honestly say tina, there are any such
dOctrna errors In tie address as the repOIt alleges
as regards tho grave offence of disturbing the peace
and harmony OF he Church.
1.-THE CHARGES.
object to the suinciency of the charges in
form" and legal effect
The rules relating TO the charge IN the BOOK
q, Discipline are: Cd Tho charge shall set forth
the alleged offence" (sec. 15); (2), A charge shall
not allege more han offence" (sec. 1j); 90, the
Supreme Court OF the Church has decided that All
charges for heresy should be as definite as possible
The article or articles OF faith impusned should be
specified, and the words supposed 10 be hsrcuca
DO IN IepuSIlaice - THESE arucles mno.i0d
the reference is made directly 10 the scripture as
standard Of orthodoxy, OF 10 the CONCESSION VI Ea..
xmeh our Churcn holds 70 be summary VI TVe
-
/ object that the Charges comply Win hene VI
TIE rules. -, - san.. 4,
1t alleges teaching doctrines which c0nnci ifrecol
rllaoly with, and cont AIRY t., the cadhAl aoc
taught in Holy scripture ete: p o. H. as
more than doctrine, or purdntJ Oh 90 -, II
taught which conflict it'll cardinal doctrine oi Holy
senpnre there Is planty OF 0nSnG rs m aeu
In separate charge Charge alleges seVeIai oneness
Sne zoe. not o,S SeS ofS ,, ' eohts WITH and
bic eonuay to- etc. II doe not specty VIA! doc
irne ii Is, or what doctrines these are when COZ s
1ct rrtconcilaly VITA, ahd are cOhtiarS w. eo 0e
final doctrine" IsUbject tal that cannot Wlth pro
pnety plead guilty or not guilty. TO teacnlns suon
doctrines until know what doctrines The prosecution
have In mind. .
% - far as know, have never taught ANY any
Scripture. 1t is conceivable That MAJ be m STA en-
and That might acknowledge my erIOr Ii snch doo-
uincs specified by the prOsecullOn -.
~ The charge is so general vague and obscure that
II cOmplehends any aid every reason that any one
may Ind for judging that my teachings are c0hufTS
10 my ordination vow, that the SCRIP ule, OF the Ola
ana New ies@ments are The only lnfa1iDie lule VI
faith and practice a,d thus enables TIE jurors 10
vote fnr my condemnation one fJr one reason. an
otner Tor second reason, third for tra reason,
different reasons Judgment that might not be secured
each reason were proved and vOled upon by itSoIi
~ The charges are not specific ana denni@ ,od ~
TIE cardinal dOotiGe that the scriptures OF the OM
sa New tesaments ae the only iniatiioic rue o.
oocIrns taught by me are in iIrecOnciiable coniict
This implies taat have taught some other doctriae
oennite and specific IN Lhat ii fails to deIne What
oceTlne IL is that has been taught in the inaugural
anareSs that Is Ia conflict WITH and contrary ~, sald
cardinal doctrine.
charge II Is less general and vague than CHARGE i
br whereas Charge / alleges teaching doctrines
Which conflict Cha sc II alleges teaching "a doctrine
u Tie character and sanctiicatlon OF believers
ssT Death ". 3d. which irreconciably co Ificis but
ns htier Is yet indeEBite and vague for the reason
taat 1t docs not define what precse doctrine -, out
~ me many different doctrines taught by theolOgLaAs
W hls department OF eschatOlogy, that Is an offence
SLSse II, while specific than Charge IN Its
aeeAce 70 tho doctrine taught BY DR.. Briggs. Is more
Sssasy al fault tha1 Charge i, Ia that Cha Sc mcii-
eeas the cardinal doctrine that the Scriptures OF the
~ and New TestaBents tie only infallble rule
lath and Practice" but Charge ii does not state
Ia ectrine II is OF Holy scripture or OF the West
als'er 20 lfesson with which the doctrine taught oy
-' lrrecOncila5le conflict. .
4, would he entirely willing to waive this objection
the charges as not specific and definite II THIS
wiz The only ground Of obi ct;on and there were any
PtoRef of Ieaching dednite Charge 10y means OF