New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-11-30
DIR. BROWN AGAIN:r THE CHARGE.

DR. BROWN AGAIN;T THE CHARGE.
After a reference to DR.. Lampes address on
Monday. Dr. Brown took up charge 4. as follows :
Brethren of the Presbytcry II be exposed to
the danger of having sentences that we draw up VII"
care and utter deliberately grave and Intricate que'
lions mt OF from tier connection. deprived OF NloSo
Limitations which careful writer and speaker desires
10 make and put badly and made 10 mean what IN
their original they did not and could not mean
1t is certainly time that all Of us knew II. am
perfectly say that indiRnan, a. .hr'su'h
publ, teacher of theology that 1t is possible
charge to be presented - this Prcsbyery IN when
fault has been The full language. az
probably many OF you will remember-l don't reca' tne
worls-was this: alt has been shown thit II we
insist the finment Of all the details OF prdicVc
prophecy many those predictions have been reversed
bv history and the great of Mesianic prophecy nus
beca fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled Tor ue reason
that its time has passed for them But the eNSeh'd
matter is that limitation at ousetlf we insist on
the funllment OF oil details" Nobody has pursued
the study OF cxeccss OF either Old or New Testament
any considerable length OF time, without knowing Ia'
prophecy In prediction. In parable III all t' oS o'
teaching that we rnd within Of the Billie
there ore certain that belong to the scVhs ant
ccr.an other things that be taken strictly ana
Literally We interpret the parallels oil "e Ne"
Testament without taking that into account You can
interpret the predictions OF the Ola Testament WIN
ont taxing tina: into account.
Dr. Shearerl would inquire II this ofou'f l. no' u'N'
cussing the merits Of the question.
d. Brown-I am endcavoring 10 show tina, 1t Is not
In tho rtheance justice TO have this charge stahu anu
| think am quite within my right IN 30 DOING IL i
necessary to decide whether It is in the Interests OF JUS
tee 70 have this charge stand, to know precisely what
the charge involves. II yOl let 1t stand IT Involves
the right OF anybody who catches at sentence ana 'ah
that sentence Of is connection TO make that sentence
30 disconnected The basis Of charge OF hcresY. Ana
that Mr. Moderator and brethren, submit Is n'''rloe'
and II is which this court am cohNihe'u' VIII
permit in the present case.
havc no more % say upon this pat OF the question
do insist that It has been proven that Charge " In
the amended charges the aw and the require
nent Of the ene.a Assembly in that ne general nature
6, the chary. IS changed by the inr>ircoH OF t0'N
now which /, cSsenua. part OF me c''k'
And l insis: further. and much more Strongly ina. 4"
is no, in the iuithcrance OF justice that a'tr hat mas
been said reference TO the actual opin'h o. inc
defendant on this point that the charge should I've p'e-sea
o. TIM, any attempt be made to bring II before TIE fe
bytery for decision judicial matter
DR.. Boath and Dr. Shcdd followed DR. Brown.
the former declaring that there were others in the
| Presbvtcrv WHO know as much about kuen"n and
Stade and Graft aud WchauSen as the professor
| did DR. Shcdd pointed ont what lie considered
| a flat contradiction" between different parts Of
| nr BriOcs's writings lie did not accuse his
| brnhers Of deception He did not think hc had
any intentions of dcccivng but here are two state
ments he said, which were selfcontradictory
DR. HASTINGS DEFINES THE NEW CHARGES
The next speaker was DR.. Thomas s. Hastings.
| of the Union Seminary, who said
The change is radical. in my judgment between The
amended Charge " what In the former charges
II gives the lie direct That Is tie pain bnRh'h Oh ~
and thcre getting around that oy any 'asu's'' ny
Briggs told this Presbytery mat he Goes not ho'
such views and In his demurrer he has rclteritc1 II
Now 70 bring such body as this charge 70 ny
a non upon. assuming that 1T is doftrlnul when IL l.
really moN-beng question OF whether ne PES OF nov
1 nd Yer col
w T. woral-Mey 1 ask that the brother be ce'Ieo
| 10 order and that he fetuct those words
Dr. Iastings-No, sir; won't retfact' ana 10 nor
| wsh 10 be interrupted By that young man
The Moderaor-Thc Moderator did not observe that ~
| Hastings wa out Of order.
Mr.. worrall-I insist that the brother was out Of
order lie has respect for this court or FOR ms
committee and ask that those words e!ihef be sU'h'n
on, from the record or be called 10 order or that
he retroct himself To call these brethren iiafS ana
,, use such language this presence is eer'o"lv out
Of order.
nr Uas,lnes-The young has not understood what
ga a, sl He is laDorng under uncallcdfo- excite
rnent l charged with lying have no snch
intention in my own mind. but wished merely to put
The thing In such strong clear simple LANGUAGE that ue
change in the nature Of the charge shoud De op"e""
That IS oil. . 80.
Mr. Worsll-Mr. Moderator VIII you oec'u' ny '
OF ORDER
n, uas,inrs-Mr. Moderator TO be Interrupted
continually by this young man 49,
The Mo1cratOr-I think Dr. Iasthrs WI" m'"o Wv
matter clear II Is allowed TO continue
Mr. wor,aIl-He accused the committee OF GAZING Dr
Briggs liar.
DR. payson-No sir: he did not say that
Dr. Has-ings-I certainly Old not intend 70 say any
ch thing but do say this charge has that ten
,, and that effect and it f., Therefore change IN
the nature and character Of n" charge
NJ worrall-Ie said that u gave Dr. EfigrS the lie
direct ask that the record OF the snosraphef be feau
IL will bear me out
rho lie direct and adhere 1t. did not say howc'et
that the committee called Dr. Bigs' 'ar, . no,
nr Robin son- DR.. Hastings wants somebody that Is ho'
a young man. presume I'd A'' '''' - - '"'O' 49,
unparliomont1ry language.
Mr.. wortaI-I say that tina. angiage was out 0,
order on this floor and ask thot It either be re'rlctd
o. that he be called to ofuer'
The Moicrator-Dr. Hastings will proceed in orier'
n, uesrnps-I dls1Vow utterly any Intention 10 say
,,i,o dirasuoc;ful L, this lo1y the committee
NV simple aim show that there Is radical chanee
I'm the natrrc Of the charge. IL expressed HFSeH W
way that seemed dsrcsp ctful to the committee ! am
sorry for did not intend II. have no IDEA uat Ihe
committee intends 20 TIL this Presbycry that Dr. Bngss
has faisG.d means 20 do So but want 70 S"o"
that the charge Is. 10 It's real nature c"a"sr
front and that II Iadcally changes the nature. ihat
e. an and 7 .m extremely sorry II have been msunder
TODD by anybody some Of the members Of the Pfe'Iy
terry have used the Christian method OIL
talking with DR.. Briggs; some have not some
have sought by personal interview TO know precisely what
10 meant And | take IL that himself l. 10 be ac-
ceptci as authority as 10 what he meant III uhat
Inaugural Address ond in anything else mat he mas Sau
-, publl shed and what seemed to me extremely I'M
fair and unccncrou' on the part OF somo j. u'c PR
.,o,, effort 70 read into his language what lac says
distinctly not In his mind and was not MS m'eh
ton 4 man De his Interpreter ana as
understand IT, Briggs il bcfoie this BODY saying hat
he intended such thing Il charged against h'"'
Dr. Shcarcr-Is that question OF new naufrf
Dr. IIastngs-when says that about charge IL
seems TO me 1t Is utterly out OF character ana out
Of keeping for pesbytery 10 Insist upon mat chars
Accent the mans disclaimer and denial and let the
hge he Withdrawn Qries Of "Question =? "Qucstlon ~
VOTING TO STRIKE OUT TIE CHARLES.
Or. Sutton followed DR.. Hastings, defending
the charges. and Dr. Field spoke next opposing