Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-29
DIR. BRIGGS ANSWER.
What He Has TO Say Regarding the Charge
OF ncre-y.


Whist He Has TO say Regarding the Charge
of nrrs-y.
In the session of the New York presbytery
trying Rev. DIR. Briggs for heresy yesterday af-
teruoon Moderator Bliss asked for the privilege
OF making an announcement lie said that the
objections Of nr. Briggs and his expressed pur-
pose 10 carry his objections to the synod should
not be interpreted as distractions to the trial,
but rs an honest expression of conviction. He
also said that be believed the prosecuting COM
mittee equally conscientious.
At O'Clock DIR. Briggs began to read his an
sWer to the charges amended. The response
was a most exhaustive summing up Of his de-
Tense. and it required two hours for him to de-
liver it,
After stating that he had no personal desire
TO delay the actual trial OF the charge against
him on its strict merits Dr. Briggs showed that
it was necessary for him 10 act his own coun-
sci. and in this capacity he had no right to pass
over technicalities or 10 allow the presbytery
to establish dangerous or illegal precedents.
nr. Briggs then made has first demurrer 10
the trial Of the present charges because the
charges put in his hands November 3, Is ?,
were finally disposed Of by the dismissal Of the
case against him on November 4. 1891, and that
the presbytery could not legally cite him q sec
ond time TO answer charges which they had dis
missed.
The second objection which DIR. Briggs raised
was 20 the order and regularity of every pro-
ceeding in the presbytery in any action taken
against him since the dismissal OF the original
charges in 1891.
but it is not for me. he said, ito advise
the presbytery what course they should pursue.
have done my duty in filing these objections.
have only this further word. that if the pres
bytery decide against me shall proceed under
protest, and with tue reservation Of all legal
rights, Of securing such redress in the higher
courts as may seem necessary.
In the second section Of his protest DIR.
Briggs dealt with the irregularity OF the amend
ments 20 thesorigind charges. He pointed out
! that amendments to charges by the law Of the
church restricted 10 change in FORMS not to
changes in substance He then said:
j object to the amended charges that the
nature Of the original charges has been
changed. The original charges called attention
! TO several doctrines taught by me. which. ss il
was claimed. were in conflict with the stand
ards. The only doctrine Of the standards with
which conflict was alleged ''the cardinal
doctrine"-that the scriptures Of the Old and
! New Testament the only infallible rule of
| faith and practice.
The amended charges allege conflict with
nine essential doctrines of the westminster
standards. as follows:
! l. That the Holy Scripture is most neces-
sary.
2. That the Holy Scripture is the rule Of
! faith and practice.
8. That the Holy Scripture is the word of
| God written.
4. That Holy Scripture is immediately in
spired.
! 5. That God is true. omniscient and I'M
changeable.
6. That HOLY Scripture evidences itself to
be the word OF tod by the consent of all the
parts.
Z. That the infallibie rule Of Interpretation
of Scripture is the Scripture itself.
s. That the processes OF redemption are lin
\ tied 10 the world.
8. That the souls Of believers are at their
death at once made perfect In holiness.
l. Let us consider the last charge first. This
introduces a new charge. namely. that my
! teaching conflicts with the essential doctrine
THAT the souls Of believers at their death
at once made perfect in holiness 1 waive my
objection TO il, and consent to 60 TO trial on
the eighth Of the present charges
| 2 Charges 1 aud 2 agree in alleging conflict
with the essential doctrine Of the Holy Scrip
ture and OF the standards that Holy Scrip
ture is most necessary and that the rule Of faith
and practice" The original charge linn
tied 90 conflict with the cardinal doctrine that
Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and prao-
/ tice.
| If these two charges had limited themselves
10 that essential doctrine, they would be in
proper form for trial. but they insert an addi-
| tioual essential doctrine. namely. that Holy
Scripture is most necessary" This changes
the nature Of the charge. and you cannot
legally allow u. IL Il NV right 20 insist tbnt
| this new charge be stricken out. At the same
time am entirely willing 90 be tried on this
I charge. as n separate charge, IL the presbyterv
70 desire. This YOU may accomplish either by
breaking up charges 1 and into two charges
I or by ilinG that vote shall DE taken each
of the two items and charges and separately.
| B. have the same objection to charge 8.
Three offenses alleged IN this charge namely,
| that my teachings conflict with the CO.
sentiai doctrines: ]. That 'Holy Scripture h
the word of God written" 2 That Holy
Scripture is immediately inspired" and 3, that
Holy Scripture IL the rule of faith and prac-
tice." Only the finst OF the three was in the
! original specifications. The third an the
original charge. OF which that specification was
part. But the second is an entirely new
charge. and on that account transcends the
nature Of the original charge
T. Charges aud 6 are open 30 more serious
objection. They agree IN alleging that my doc.
trines conflict with two esseutial doctrines,
itself to he the word of God b. the consent OF
of Interpretation IL the Scripture itself" both
of which are new charges and, therefore, tran
| scend the nature OF the original charge. which
cardinal doctrine that Holy Scripture In the
| infai.ible rule Of faith and practice"
g. Two charges remain 10 be considered,
namely. and Z. I object TO them on two
grounds; (a) These new charges, which 20
change the general nature NJ the iginal charges
that they cannot legally be allowed; and (b) %
| il not in the Interests of justice that such
1 charges these should be approved by tko
| presbytery of New York