The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-12-20
DR.. BRIGGS'S DEFENCE ENDED
NE MAINTAINS THAT THE CHARGES
no NOT TOUCH VITAL DOCTRINE

mr. MAINTAINS THAT THE CHARGES
no NOT TOUCH VITAL DOCTRINE
The Authorship OF the Pentateueh-Inme.
d,ate SanctlAcation At Death Not
Taught in the Scriptures-The Rev. DIR.
Lampe IL 70 speak To-Day In Rebuttal.
rrot Charles A. Briggs closed his defence
yesterday before the New York Presbytery.
which is trying him for herssy in the Scotch
Presbyterian Church. and to- day the Rev. ]. ].
Iampe OF the committee Of prosecution will
arsak. Col. J. J. McCook promised that DR..
lampe would finish to- morrow This would
enable the court to vote on the charges on
Thursday. Prof. Briggs fears that DR.. Lampe
will Introduce new matter. instead OF confln-
ing himself to rebuttal. and In this event he
will demand as his right to be heard in reply.
This would carry the trial into the Christmas
holidays. which the whole court OF 40 minis
ters and laymen are anxious to prevent. Prof.
Briggs raised the point yesterday that the
prosecution had no right under the Book OF
Discipline to speak in rebuttal. and he desired
that this privilege should be extended to them
by vote OF the fresbytery Moderator Bliss
decided that usage gave tho prosecution the
right to speak, but he insisted that It's mem-
bers must confne themselves strictly to re-
huttal. Prof.. Briggs appealed from this de-
cisiar. but the Moderator was sustained.
Prof Briggs began his argument yesterday
upon Charge w. which declares his teaching
that Moses did not write the Pentateuch to be
contrary to Scripture and to Confession Prof.
Briggs said that 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 at
tsmrted to do, this. and tho charge should
therefore DO ruled out Of court as destitute OF
fany or all Of the evidences are essential
doctrines Of our Standards" Prot. Briggs said.
will tho now evidences which are proposed
iitions to these evidences and indeed as the
FIRST, and second in the order. namely. the
dost1ines OF our standardsY
OF two-thir9s Of the Presbyteriss. such vote
would determine that these evidences are re-
t.nes % =, ss S.m at Ss
catalogue; i. then any Of ths eight evidences &c;
Sround that the Presbyterian Church BY DC;
.cii,,ive vote had added them to the sight II
agree to these two new evidences would be
:Smpslled to retire from the Pres eytesrian
s is vR Rg0RGns vs nf :i
u: 'ptssbytsrisn tTursS II; ths,eis,rs :, Wv
recognize that the clause consent OF all the
posed additions to the first chapte. will also
case sass ses that the sim riest way when
the higher critics can be pprEed from the
@ the ss @ 81 int Of S a
ss1s q II M w. parts is an essential article OF
PROT Briggs said he could agree that the
81 al t ne Parts is
Ss hs lsn. n. rnpS RI o syd'ne' of
todetermlne what that consent is This We
esident to the Court at the OUTSET that there is
anirreconcilabled difference Of opinion between
snna saS to
'Ey to prove to you that Holy Scripture tells US
otssr Ssna W ia
.yidenss that the consent Of all tho parts Of
ss2 y witch "na s sven cy se4pus.
itself: force, the conclusion that Moses
dill no. write the ~ The
srspmsnt. But " arr confronted Il III oats
set " tho principle already established that
internre,ation Of these passages OF Holy
seripturss and that YOU cannos b. majority "a
thurch forces you to decide by the intsrpreta..
Wha the ssrst lines
Il its decisions ms To depart from them and
sases Of Scripture BY a majority vote Of the
lrcsby.ery will violate the constitution OF the
Church and all tho precedents OF ecclesiastical
Speaking Of what hc called prelim tnary
not sns hse an tabe rae Of
and practice can only come from vol! Known
proposition as bridge which would not bear
the strain nroposed to ne rut Mp9n 1t. ~ Yields
s and s st e" m 9s sh q Of r b
de And nd. wsss IIIs logical
irl i'll hAr. n n v n
minister is bound to cross it. Let us test it
before We cross it.
but we'll nown prophet can write a divine
rule OF faith and practice. 1t is next NECESSARY
prophet who could have written the Pen
ttaseuch. No such doctrine as this is given in
taught it, 1t is hoctrine Of recent Tines mes
Modern d2gmaticians invented it to- use 1t in
They hai IN ,ne
doctrine OF the canon taught bv the reformers
AND !" the and they
VIII YOU to1w caIyin ., Dr. sh.da M re-
which these ddocmaticans are leading the
GIey'e"n GhqrGh or" Gs r9.s Their
tered the traditional theories, Of the author
..hip Of The Ebl,ral locks. Is i a safe posi-
ity. OF every one of these books upon your
ability to convince yourselves and others that
they we're written by well-known apostles and
1t is rossiblc that majority OF this court
nay agree with this modern dogma about the
Bible which am opposing. But would you
maEe il an essential and necessary article OF
isth in our Church! Are You prepared o ar
Isy our Church against the Biblical scholars
oitle wor Id Are You resolved at all hazards
,%stem tho onrrshing tide OF Biblical criti-
elsa II this is your detern nation. then
IHQr 'egal course is plain; Prepare memo
N.tiothe General Assem- bly, requesting them 10
.tttdown overturcs to the Presbyter,cs for IN
anrhtn ent ofthe Con fession SO as to state this
iI.sma as an essential and necessary article;
teVs, as honorable men. meet the issue and
decide i as We decide other questions OF re-
vision But do not try to decide such mo-
in n,ous question by inlirertion. Do not read
m Inc me onfession dogma which the West
@ihs'et Givin-s never dreamed Of. As honor
asle Christian gentlemen try me by tho Con-
lesion You cannot honoraby try me- by a
" "s@ gHEWa. forged in modern school Of the
munster doctriue II you should do such a
t.'hE mink You that the counterfeit will not
~ "Annsed to the Christian world? You