Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-11-29

ceed, under protest, ana Win Tue reseT-
walton of all legal rights Of securing
such redress in the higher courts as
may seem necessary"
In the second citation OF his protest
DR.. Briggs dealt with the irregularit
of the amendments to the original
charges.
The amended charges allege conflict
with nine essential doctrines OF the
Westminster standards as follows:
1. That the Holy Scripture is most
necessary.
Q. That Holy Scripture is the rule Of
faith and practice.
3. That Holy Scripture is the word OF
God written.
4. That Holy Scripture is immediate
ly inspired.
s. That God is true, Ominiscent and
Interchangeable.
6. That Holy Scripture evidences IT
self to be the word Of God by the con-
sent Of all the parts.
7. That the infallible rule OF inter-
probation of scripture is the scripture
itself.
s. That the processes Of redemption
are limited to the world.
@. That the souls of believers are at
their death at once made perfectin holi-
ness.
az Let US consider the last charge
first.
This introduces new charge, name
ly, that my teaching conflicts with the
essential doctrine "that the souls OF be-
levers are at their death at once made
perfect In holiness" 1 waive my OBJ
lection to it aud | consent to go to trial
on the eighth Of the present charges.
(2.) Charges l and 2 agree in aIleg-
ing conflict with the essential doctrine
of the holy scripture and OF the stand
ards "that holy scripture is most neces-
sary and the rule Of faith and practice.
The original charge was limited to con-
flict with ''the cardinal doctrine that
holy scripture is the rule OF faith and
practice" If these two charges had
limited themselves to that essential doc
trine, they would be in proper form for
trial, but they insert an additional doc
trine, namely, that "the holy scripture
is most necessary" This changes the
nature Of the charge and you
cannot legally allow it. 1t is
my right to insist that this
new charge be stricken out. At the
same time 1 am perfectly willing to be
tried on this charge as a separate
charge, II the PresbYtery so desire
This you may accomplish either by
breaking up charges and 2 into two
separate charges, or by ruling that a
vote shall be taken on each Of the two
items and charges l AMI 2 separately.
49, ! have the same objection to
charge 3. Three offenses are alleged In
this charge, namely: That my teach
ings are in conflict with the essential
doctrines; THAT "holy scripture Is
the word ef God written" 2-That
"holy scripture is Immediately Inspir-
ed" and 3-That "holy scriptdre Is
the rule of faith and prac-
tice." Only the first Of the
three was in the original speci-
fications. The third was in the origi-
nal charge, of which that specification
was a part Bnt the second Is entirely
a new charge, and on that account
transcends the original charge. The
reading Of DIR. Briggs demurrer occu-
pied more than three-quarters OF an
hour, and IL was four o'clock when he
resumed his seat. Mr.. Lamper, of the
prosecuting committee, submitted an
answer to DR.. Briggs objections. The
speaker attempted to show the falsity
OF the defendants statement that the
general nature Of the charges was
changed in the amended report. He
also claimed that the changes that had
been made were effected In the interest
OF conciseness and with the purpose Of
meeting the objections raised by DR..
Briggs at his previous trial.
A sensation was sprung by DR.. Geo.
Alexander a moment after Mr.. Lamper
had finished speaking. The pastor OF
the University Place Church moved
that in consequence OF the objections
made by the accused, that the fourth
and seventh charges Of the amended re-
port be stricken out. The motion
caused a lengthy discussion. Lawyer
McCook, OF the prosecuting committee,
restored quiet by proposing that the
consideration of the motion be post
poned until tomorrow. In the mean
time the committee would make what
ever concessions 1t could, consistent
with the performance Of its duty. A
recess vas then taken until two o'clock
tomorrow afternoon.