Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-12-20
ESPECIAL TELEeHAM TO THE DIsPATcH.1

NEW YORK, Dec 19-Prot Charles A.
Briggs closed his defense to-day before the
New York Presbytery, which is trying him
for heresy in the Scotch Presbyterian
Church, and tomorrow Rev. j. j. Lampe,
of the committee, will speak. Colonel j.
j. McCook promised that DR.. Lampe would
finish Wednesday. This would enable the
court to vote on the charges on Thursday.
Prof Briggs fears that DR.. Lampe will
introduce new matter instead of confning
himself to rebuttal. and in this event he
will demand as his right to be heard in re-
ply. This would carry the trial into the
Christmas holidays, which the whole court
of 14O ministers and laymen are anxious to
prevent
Prof Briggs raised the point to-day that
the prosecution had no right under the
Book of Discipline to speak in rebuttal, and
he desired that the privilege should be e1-
tended to them by a vote of the Presbytery.
Moderator Bliss decided that usage gave the
prosecution the right to speak, but he in
sisted that its members must confne them
selves strictly to rebuttaL Prof Briggs ap-
pealed from This decision, but the Modera-
tor was sustained
Charge to Be Ruled Out of Court
Prof. Briggs began his argument to-day
upon charge 4, which declares his teach
ing that Moses did not write the Pentsteuch
to be contrary to Scripture and the confess
sion. Prof Briggs said it was necessary
for the prosecution to prove their assertion
that the doctrine they cite is an essential
doctrine of the Westminster standards.
They had not attempted to do this, and the
charge should therefore be ruled out of
court as destitute of proof. He sald
If any or all of the evidences are essential
doctrines of our standards will the new evil
dences which are proposed by overture from
the General Assembly as additions to these
evidences, and indeed as the first and second
in the order, namely, ''1he truthtulness OF
the history and the faithful witness OF our
prophecy and miracle" be essential doc
rrines OF our standards? If this revision
should be adopted by two-thirds OF the Pres
byteries, such a vote would determine that
these evidences are regarded by the Church
as of sufficient importance to assert them at
the beginning OF the catalogue. If, then,
Rny of the eight evidences are regarded as
essential, these two new evidences could
claim TO be essential on the ground that the
had added them to the eight IT this should
be SO, those of US who cannot agree to these
two new evidences would be compelled TO
retire from the Presbyterian Church, be-
cause we cannot subscribe to them.
Meant for a Purge for the Church.
This is probably the underlying motive in
those who have advocated this revision.
They desire to use them as purge TO the
Presbyterian Church. If therefore, you
recognize that the clause consent of all
the parts" is an essential article of the con-
fession, we shall be obliged to conclude that
the proposed additions to the first chapter
will also become essential articles if
adopted. In that case suggest that the
simplest way in which the higher critics
can be purged from the Church is by the
adoption of this revision and by the decision
OF the supreme court OF the Church of this
simple question, whether consent Of all
the parts is an essential article of our con-
fession-
Prof Briggs said he could agree that the
proposition consent of all the parts" is q
fact attested by scientific study, but he
sould not agree that it was an internal evil
dence of the Scripture being the word of
God. Of this he said:
Granting that there is consent of all the
parts of Holy Scripture, it is our duty to
determine what that consent is. This we
shall use every effort to determine. But it
is evident to the court at the outset that
there is irreconcilable difference of
opinion between the parties who propose
to resort to the same tribunal and to seek
the same guidance They try to prove to
YOU that the Holy Scripture tells us that
Moses wrote the Pentateucn. 1, on the other
dence tnat 'the consent of all the parts of
the Holy Scripture and the Interpretation of
Scripture which is given by Scripture it
self force the conclusion that Moses did not
write the Pentateuch.
Reduced to ScripturaI Argument
The argument is therefore reduced to the
scriptural argument. But we are confronted
ut the outset by the principle, already estab-
lished, that the Church has not officially de-
termined the Interpretation of these
passages of Holy Scripture, and that you
sannot by a majority vote in the Presbytery
E.a.. H.
The cons Il tuition of the Church forces you to
decide by the Interpretation OF scripture
given in the confession, and to limit your
decisions within the strict lines of its decis-
ions. To depart from them and judge me
by the interpretation of these passages of
Tcripture by a majority vote OF the Presby-
tery will violate the constitution of the
Church and all the precedents of ecclesias-
tical process.
Speaking of what he called preliminary
dogmatic objection, Prot. Briggs said it was
not true that an intallible rule of faith and
practice can only come from we'll known
prophets and apostles He spoke of such a
proposition as q bridge which would not
bear the strain proposed to put upon it. He
continued:
Not Bridge for Presbyterian
1t yields to the slightest touch of the
breath of criticism and lets its users fall
into a gulf of absurdities. And even il it
we're a sound logical bridge, 1t is not West
minister bridge or a Biblical bridge, and
therefore no Presbyterian minister is bound
TO cross it. 1t is first necessary to show that
noone but well-known prophet can write
q divine rule of faith and practice. 1t is
next necessary to show that Moses is the
only veIl-known prophet who could have
written the PantRteuch. No such doctrine
as this is given in Holy Scripture. No
Christian church has ever taught it. 1t is a
doctrine OF recent times. Modern dogmati- |
clans invented it to use it in the establish
Tnent of their theory Of the canon of Holy |
Scr.ipture, They had abandoned the doc |
trine of the canon taught by the reformers |
and i'm the Westminster Confession, and |
they devised this erroneous doctrine in its |
place. ,,
reforrner, or Hodges, Westminster theology /
or Princeton theology? Look az the gulf |
into wbich these dogmaticians are leading |
the Presbyterian Churcn, ere you cross their
bridge Modern Biblical criticism has
shattered the traditional theories of the
authorship o. the Biblical -booms. Is it
safe position 70 risk the eanonicity and di-
vine authority OF every one OF these books
upon your ability 20 convince yourselves