New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-12-08

church. SIN remains in the ministry and thus violates
his ordination VOWS. The prosecution in the how
before the Presbytery has sought to make this dis
tnction as plain possible In the charges which have
been presented IT has credited the accused with good
faith virtually admitting that he suppose the doctrines
which he has uttered 10 De in harmony with the
Standards Of the Church. II would have been possible
to have included In the charges dealing with the
Violation OF the ordination VOWS. For 1t IS at least
doubtful whether Professor Briggs has sought the peace
the purity Of the Church, either in the presentation
OF his doctrines or In the manner In which lie mas
published and defended them. The committee has,
howerever preferred to pass by without Judicial notice
BIS repeated attacks upon the traditional doctrines Of
the Church, upon its standards Of Doctrine rDon IL
dogmatc theology, well the need ssy arrogant
and offensive tone Of many of his utterance~ II mas
preferred TO confne the attention Of the Prcsbytry
to the simple ISSUE whether the doctrines Of the
Inaugural Address can be held to be In harmony with
the doctrines OF the Presbyterian Church.
The committee of prosecution has charged MN
Dr. Briggs with errors which haze been chiefly Sc;
forth In the inaugural Address. The accused Is not
trial for any Of the orthodox utieTances which are
doubtless be found In his works lie Is Oh ial for
certain erroneous teaching contained In the inaugural
Address and works referred therein If the orthodox
passages which have been read in your hearing were
the only writings of Professor, Briggs, he would not
have been charged with the offences found in the
charges and specifications. lie is not on trial for any
orthodox uteranccs. He IS on trial for certain eN
plleit definite statements in the Inaugural Address
which have been rctIactcd. 1t Is not enough
for him to prove that he has IN many places
taught orthodox doctrine, and he Is called upon to
defend not the orthodox utcrances Of his various
writings but the alleged erroneous utterances OF certain
writings, which he has declined to rctract.
But what has Professor Briggs done! He has re
published his inaugural Address in second edition,
without rcraction amendment IN the face OF firo
OF hostile criticism The third edition Of the In
auglral copies of which have been presented TO the
members OF this court was published subsequent 10
his response TO the original charges and specifications
and shows that response have been in no sense re
traction For In the preface TO this third edition Pro
fcsSor Briggs writes
Il have seen nothing in the hostile criticism TO
lead me to make any changes whatever either In th'
matter or the form OF the address. Im'
third edition contains the charges made against me
before the Preshycly of New York october D. ana Hy
answer thereto
If that means anything. II means that he has de-
parted from the alleged orthodoxy Of his earlier
position and IS ready to stand 10y the doctrines OF the
address without rctaction. OF Two contradictory
propOsitionS mus: be false. If. Therefore II br
held that his inaGua address does not agree with
the doctrines OF his earlier publications. and II the
former publications are orthodox then the inaugural
address Contradicts what Is orthodox.
The objection Of Professor Briggs is not merely 10
certain phases Of theology within his own communion
but 10 the essential. distinctive doctrines OF the Tres
bvtcrian Church. His Language f. not that of man
pleading for the furCa.rranc" and promotion "i M'
Church and It's creed hut that OF an conociaN' lie
addresses Presbyterian audience IN this way ana no
one need be surprised nj his final appeal
Criticism IS at work with fire and knife. Let rs
cut down everything that IS dead and harmful every
kind OF dead OFT odoXy every species Of ciete "cc'-
siastIcsm all merely formal morality, all ihosa dry
and brittle fences THAT constitute dcnomlnAtonallsm
and are The barriers OF Church unity
admit that such language as hav" quoted IS
ambiguous ~ long 1t stands apart from n" CON
text We may not learn from these passages Of th"
address what imrtful doctrines these are, against
which the Professor earnestly dcclaims. Eui when
we turn TO the charges before US ana notice the
proof given support them. We shall find the desired
information. 1t will be shown tlHt the forms sug-
res,cd I'm the Inaugural Address Itself ar" incon-
sstcnt with the Standards 10 which Professor briggs
has subscribed The brcastworkS % tradltl1 nali'm.
the citadel Of the Bible the so-cacd dead orthodoxy,
fiat 10 which fire and knife 10 be nppcd-al these
are simply certain doctrines Of Tie Holy scripture,
AZ interpreted In the Standards OF the Presbyterian
Church.
To adopt for n moment the expressive Imagery OF
the Professor It IS the solemn duty OF this court 10
determine whether our citadel shall be surrendered 20
those VITO have declared their opposition 10 the faith
which we pledged to defend