New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-12-06

vessel aud another the principal artery, or TO cut
the ugular VEIN thing have bullet imbdded ID
the calf Of the leg and another have IL pierce the heart
the brain. IL Is thing in building TO cut door
here and TO close UP window there. and another To 20
down 10 The cellar and the moin supports Of inc
upper stories Every system whether material, mental
or moral manifest the distinction between the Incidental
and the vital To osc remove or To forakc the FORMER
more or less Inconvenience; il be in
jury. To lose 10 70 forsake the later means
in every destruction.
We conceive OF condition OF the human system
that will permit the Of the principal artery or
jueuar vcinthat permit neiGhbor TO shoe: us
through the heart or brain Neither can we cohc'No
OF any reasonable latitude OF Interpretation that VIII! e
Brgg's forth in tho charges and
specifications. The proofs will b. given that These tah
ings lie life az the system OF blbe
Truth set forth in the Westminster Standards lhec
teachings strike the foundation support on whch inc
Westminster symbols stand in their work for the Chnreh
the pillar and ground Of the Truth. Let me not De
understood as saving that the Presbyterian Church does
not bear with great many departures from the west
minister Standards-with grcit many Nagail's OF "r
theological instructors there those who care neither
what they what they 1nrn. - man. one tcHS
us, "has known along With his arms ana legs
gone without eyes with part Of his skull shot away
but it was an hardly worthy Of the name Of
life" But when the dcathdeang ball Is aimed at his
heart the question is not between life and death; II IL
life or death.
No member Of this court doubt thc: the inaugural
deals with things vitality essential TO not only
Of the Presbyterian Church. The opinion that It's dealings
with them is contradiction Of III" Holy scripture
which basis of those standards and consequently
q contradiction OF the Standards themselves am here
TO maintain all hart soul strength and mind
HOW DR. BRIGGS AND col McCOOK INTERPRET.
In the discussion that occurred over the qucs-
ton Of DR. Briggs taking the oath, the defendant
said
The question raised by the prosecution IS this Whether
l lave any testimony II YOU will Look a: Section "S
you will zee that evidence may be oral. wfi;,'n or
printed. dr5ct circumst INITIAL have no' gwen ah'
oral testimony have presented written testimony pre-.
cisv as thu pros presented written testimony
have presented documentary evidence. The ohly diner
cncc ctween IS that the prosecution presented II 10
wholesale. and only r'aa, think. one extract; wMf%'
presented IT, reading number Of extracts from "ofRS
that were bIouch, evidence That Is the onY dfcr'
cree You cannot ru do,ument1ry eNidenc" under o1th
you documentary evidence you cannot cross
examine Documentary evidence. eXccIt IN Argument NV
evidence +. doumcnt'ry, pure and simple and II IS no.
evidence such l. personal testimony ana therefore
am rot oblg d to affirm 1t under oa'h
The rule. Section % Of tn" HOOK OF DSlphnc' IS
"Tho w,ncsse, shall be examined and II desired cross
examined refers Witnesses, ~ decided the other
doy-"and a1y other competent evidence ih'Fouu' u
I have introduced that other competent evidence "hth
documentary evidence and j. now for TN, BODY 10 rue
whether any documentary evidence Is competent clGec
or MOI. Tho Prcslytcry has no iiSht u pn' me- uHuc'
oath and the Committee ha" no Ti7ht to do
what they are aiming at now-to cio's-eNa"lnc me d
witness That is their point They Sie lying !" CIV
me questioned present witness to nv own oiUourH'
and cross.cNamnc me lcforc YOU That = WHAT IVY
are aiming at 1t Is not necessary for me 20 say any
thing more to expose the injustice aud wrong ana INC
outrageous conduct that T.. proposed applause
The Moderator NapI!ng with eaveN.-"e m"'' ho'
hove opplause
Mr. McCooR-I have never hal the privilege o, having
It stated that outrage to ask man TO verify his
statement; but. 50 FAR a. that i an OUTRAGE must
Of course submit to IT, Professor Briggs evidently mis-
DAY he
Book We are not discussing the point Of having him
come upon the stand although that is d"Srahl" thing
H. IA NOT the question Of what evidence f. the best
evidence We Of course could not produce him as
witness as much would desire TO do So But when
he comes with which n can make under
oath ts body the best evidence Of that J. the
original statement and rescript Of IT, and selections
read from IL here Now. Mr. Moderator and Brethren
do no. wish to any delay here. II Dr. Briggs
hesitaes in slightest degree % verify thee statements
which he has made and published would lie disposed
to waive them provided anu permitted % take the eNc'p-
ton which ought take IN protection OF tn position 81
the comrttee | do no. wish make moment, delay
simply wish to call attention to IT, on1 that this body
must not under circumstances take into consideration
any statement here read by Dr. Briggs. as quoted fom
hi. own works : evidence until he has verified them.
But IL It = the ruling shall be done Why
shnll simply take ~ exception.
The Molcrator-Tnc view 0; the Moderator f. this:
That in this case distinction between personal
or cral tesomony,he examination Of wtnos~s-and docu-
nentary proof ana thai, this proof i subrt"i a.
authentic so far the works Of ~. Briggs eo"s 10
rether with the other works which accepted a. being
authentic by their outhois IS that there
should be administration d personal oath ZAP
pause) The Moderator must kindly. but very dccd.
edly insist that all persons IN the house shall abstn
from applaudlng.
Three clcrrymcn who were not present all OF
last week were dcbarrcd from taking part in the
trial Dr.. c. 5 Robinson raising the question OF
order in the case of Joseph i. Lcstradc and DR.
Bliss deciding that DR.. \. ID. l.. Jewctt aud Vim
cent Pisek were in the same list if one failed
all mist. DR.. w. W. Mtcrbury objected to the
last two named and they cannot become members
of the court Last year Mr. I.rsradc and Mr.
Pisck voted 10 dismiss the against DIR. Briggs
and Dr. Jewrtt voted not 10 do 30. II the thIcc
would have voted the sam" way at the end Of
the trial, Dr. Briggs has lost vote by the
action yesterday.