Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-12-21
BRIGGS JUDGES DOZE
While Lampe Reads $1,000 Words in
the Prosecutions Behalf.
HIGHER CRITICISM is ATTACKED.
The Defenses Use of the Word Essential
Is Unjustifable.
A PLEA FOR THE BIBLES INERRANCY
ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE D1srArcH.l

/ H.
NEW YORK, Dec 20-To-day's session
of the New York Presbytery, sitting in
judgment on Prof Charles A. Briggs
charged with heresy, was devoted entirely
to the closing argument for the prosecution,
delivered by Rev. Joseph j. Lampe, d. d.
DR.. Lampe read his argument from printed
sheets, and had read about p, 900 words at
8 o'clock when the Presbytery took re-
cess He was only about half through,
and he said he might, possibly, finish his
| argument tomorrow. The case should
then go to the Presbytery for decision by
vote.
Both DR.. Lampe and Colonel McCook
said to-day that this closing argument was
simply the right of the prosecution. 1t was
not evidence in rebuttal Dr. Briggs OBJ
jected on Monday, fearing DR.. Lampe
would introduce new matter. His objection
was overruled
No interruption was offered to DR.. Lampe
| to-day. He talked for ~ hours, and the
Presbyters read papers and pamphlets or
conversed the while, and some of the judges
of DR.. Briggs slept soundly.
Briggs Has No Corner on Church Learning.
DR.. Lampe went over all the old ground
at the beginning of his argument in the
progress of which he took occasion, as DR..
Birch had done to remark that DIR. Briggs
did not possess all the learning in the
Presbyterian Church. II had been stated,
and some people believed, that DR.. Briggs
knew more about the Bible than all his CO.
presbyterers taken together, but those who
believed this believed what is not true.
The Church has many scholars as great as
DR.. Briggs, and the Church is in hearty ac-
cord with the best scholarship; but the
Presbyterian Church places faith above
mere scholarship.
DR.. Lampe took direct issue with DR..
Briggs on the latter's statement in his de-
fense on Monday, that the higher criticism
has reached such substantial results as to
appeal to every honest mind; that it is not
negative in Its results but positive; not de-
structlve, but constructive; no longer on
the defensive, but on the aggressive, and
sure of convincing America ere long Dr..
Lampe Continued:
An Onslaught on Higher Criticism.
The most distinguishing feature of the
higher criticism is its audacity. Intoxicated
with its own mmensIty, it has brought it
self under deserved suspicion. 1t brands a
distinguished company of Christian schol-
ars who have done yeoman service in the
maintenance and defense of Gods truth, as
mere traditionalists, who in ignorance and
prejudice have despoiled the people of their
Bible by erecting impossible barriers about
1t, and presents itself as the one great oracle
of truth and certainty. Nothing, it claims,
has been settled by the great thinkers of the
Church during more than Is centuries.
1t is freely admitted that the defenders of
higher criticism exhibit large amount of
erudition and research; but when one
presses his way through all the material
gathered. through the language and the
style, and arrives at the concept of the in
ner substance, he finds nothing but con-
lecture. The immense pile rests simply on
unveri1ed contecture-on mere subjective
impressions.
The Use of the Word Essential.
He combated Dr. Briggs assertion that
some of the doctrines which he is charged
with practically denying are not essential,
and that the prosecution must first prove
them essential before he could be adjudged
guilty. The word Essential" DR.. Lampe
said, is not in the Standards of the Presbv-
terian Church. And, again, in the adopting
act of 1929, the Presbytery and Synod re-
ceive the power to decide whether doctrines
against which ministers may find objection
are Essential The term, so far as it is
admissible, refers not to doctrines essential
to salvation alone, but to those essential
to the system of doctrine and mode OF gov
ernment of the church. DR.. Lampe con-
cludsd:
1t is not necessary, therefore, for the pros
ecution to prove by historical statements
whether or not the doctrines alleged to have
been assailed are or are not essential to the
system. According to our present consti-
tuition, anything which contradicts Scrip
ture, or which may work harm to Others is
essential enough to call for judicial proc ess.
The Defense Ignoring Arguments.
Speaking on the charges as to the source
of authority, DR.. Lampe said DR.. Briggs
had not answered the arguments of Dr.
Birch and Elder McCook. He has merely
contended that the specifications are irrele-
want to sustain the charges, and that the
citations from the Scriptures and Standards
did not prove them TO be ofenses.
DR.. Lampe took up the point of the CO.
ordinate authority of the Bible, the Church
and the Reason at great length. There could
be no question, he said, that Dr. Briggs
conceives of the Reason as being able to
speak with certainty and final authority on
the burning question of human salvation.
Dr.. Briggs is wrong in saying that the
Standards of the Church are great fountain
of divine authority. No authority is given
to the Church except that prescribed in the
Scripture. Dr. Lampe went over the sub
ject at great length to show that the Script
ure is supreme, and was SO regarded by the
Standards
DR.. Briggs on Inspiration.
DR.. Lampe also maintained that DIR.
Briggs made no attempt in his defense to
answer arguments of the prosecution ON the
charges relating to inspiration. DR.. Briggs
merely maintained that those opposing him
had their judgment warped by an ironclad
dogma of verbal inspiration; that his teach
ing is not contrary to the doctrines indi-
Gated, and that his view of inspiration is in
harmony with both the Scriptures and the
Standards. Then DR.. Lampe argued the
point afresh, going over much the same
ground covered by Dr. Birch and Eller Mo.
Cook for the prosecution. He claimed for
the Bible, as is claimed for itself, full in
spiration and entire veracity and inerrancy