The National tribune., 1893-06-08


Me JUSTICE"
Passing to the charge that DR.. Briggs taught
that tho processes of redemption extended to
the world to come in the cases of many who
died i'm sin, Dr. Lampe made freq ueHt quotations
from the writings of DIR. Briggs, in which he
accused Protestants of the fault of not extend
ing the process of redemption to the vast
periods of time in the middle state between
death and resurrection; in which he called
Judgment Immediately after death "hurtful.
uuchristian error; "bug-bear which makes
death a terror to the best of men," and terms
the statement of DR.. Dornor concerning the
possibility of repentance in the next world
excellent thoughts"
The whole contention of DR.. Briggs, said Dr.
Lampe, was that the Bible and the standards
favor the view of making believers pure, NOR
ally perfect and holy, and was accomplished
by means of progressive sanctifcation alter
death This doctrine was separated from the
Romanist doctrine of purgatory by so fraii
barrier that it would easily pass into it.
Dr. Briggs then rose to make his defense.
He said be had already repudiated the ACCUSE
ton that he taught what was charged about
| the predictions of the Old Testament and the
great body of the Messianic predictions; he dis
| claimed that he was guilty of teaching that the
| process Of redemption extended to the world to
| come in the case of many who died in sin, add
| ing that be had repudiated the Romanist doc
-
| future probation and regeneration after death,
or any beginning of Christian life after death
| He admitted the allegation that he had
| taught that errors may have existed in the
original text of the Scriptures as it came from
| the authors was fairly accurate He said that
| the only errors he ever found had been beyond
! the range of faith or practice, and therefore
| did not impair the infalIibility of the Holy
| Scriptures as rule of faith and practice. His
| accusers were entitled to the opinion that
| therefore ne necessarily excited suspicion as to
| the infallibiity of the Scriptures as rule
within the range of faith and practice, but they
| had no right to put it into his mouth.
With regard to the charge that DIR. Briggs
| taught that Moses was not the author OF the
| Pentateuch, DIR. Briggs made the same de-
| tense he made before the Presbytery OF New
| York and summed up in this way:
"There is no lawful bridge by which these
| specifications, that Moses is not the author Of
| the Pentateuch and Isaiah is not the author of
| half of the book that bears his name can be
brought under the charges. Therefore, there
| is no relevancy in the specfcstions-they can
| not be accounted as valid. The Westminster
Confession of Faith nowhere states that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch, or that Isaiah wrote the
| whole of the book that bears his name"
Passing TO the charge that he thought that
| specification is not complete at death, DIR.
! Briggs said that his doctrine was clearly stated
| in the following words of his inaugural:
There is no authority in the Scriptures, or in
| the creeds of Christendom, for the doctrine OF
| immediate sancti6cation at death. The only
sancti6cation known to experience, to Christian
| orthodoxy and TO the Bible is progressive
| sanctiication. Progressive sanet feation after
death is the doctrine of the Bible aud the
Church."
Turning to the Assembly and raising his
hands solemnly, DR.. Briggs concluded:
II have endeavored to explain my views. l
hold them sincerely, and with all my heart. i
hope they are set forth in Holy Scripture. l
know many of them are set forth in the West
minister Confession. challenge you before God
TO Judge ME rightly and conscientiously. chal-
| lenge you before God to judge me according to
the record. challenge you before Christ to do
me justice in your judgment"
Col. McCook closed the case for the appellants,
combining himself to the points raised by DIR.
Briggs. The speaker traversed anew the
grounds Of the teachings of the defendant, and
asserted despite the latter's avowals and ex-
plantations that they were in opposition to the
Holy Scripture and Confession of Faith, and
therefore gross errors in the eye of the Church.
He also asserted that the doctrines at issue
were essential, Notwithstanding Prof. Briggs
declaration of opinion to the contrary.
The general discussion which waged all day
Wednesday and far into the night session was
the warmest feature of the Assembly. Each
man was allowed three minutes In which to
give his reason why he would vote one way or
the other against Dr. Briggs. The Briggs adj
vocates shone prominently throughout the
argument, because nearly all of them had
bold word to say for the Union Theological
Seminary Professor. while those OF the majority
were content to leave the case with their lead
erS.
One of the strongest arguments came from
many graduates OF the Seminary, who all de-
cIared that DIR. Briggs's teachings had done
great work to confirm their faith in the Bible
as an infalible rule of faith and practice.
Repeatedly the Briggs men thrust at the ma
jority the declaration that the world was watch
ing to see whether they feared to subject the
Bible to the searching light of inquiry and
| scholarship. Faces became grave as the full
force of the liberal spirit gradually showed
itself, and the commissioners recognized the
horns of the dilemma when the young minis
tcrs began to ask what would be done with the