Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-29

He reviewed the testimony submitted to
SHOW that the presbytory Of New York was
prejudiced in the case and that to show that
mistakes and H. Justice entered into the final
Judgment of the case. That the charges were
proved" sa:d DR.. Lampe. becomes still more
evident from the statement made in the verdict
rendered by the inferior judicatory 10 the effect
tina, in Acquiring Dr. Briggs. the presbytery is
NOT TO be understood as expressing approval of
the critical and theological views embodied in
his inaugural address A resolution TO that
effect was introduced on the floor Of presbytery
when the voting was about TO commence with
the intention OF securing votes for acquittal
which otherwise might be conscientiously with
held.
But why thiscaveat if the views of DR.. Briggs
are In harmony with received truth: Marifestly
the majority OF prcsbytory do not desire to bur
den themselves OF cloud their reputation By an
espousal OF those views. They must consider
the influence of such doctrines bancfGl to no
slight extent. Bat for those critical and theo-
logical views DR.. BrigCs was Tut on trial lie
not only approves them. bat diligently propa-
gates them. And 1t was the duty of the lower
court, BY calm and impartial investigation. TO
ascertain whether or moi those critical and theo-
logical views are in harmony with the Holy
Scripture and the standards. and to condemn
them ii they did not md tlell in harmony with
those authorities, and'thus 20 check their spread
and influence in TIE most effective way
Not DECIDED on us MERITS.
1T is further evident" he said, from the
language used il tie final judgment. that the
inferior iGa.catorv did not make decision on
the merits Of the case. They declare Tito be
tho.r 'C.ruest conviction that ;hc grave Issues
involved in this case VIII bc more wisely AMI
justly determined by calm investigation ana
iratcrnaI discussion than by icGic;I a:.r.i-,,-
ment and process What l. this hGt to say
thar they threw the Casc out of court fC- 10
reason that they have IN earnest conviction
against settling the grave i-suor involved IL il
~ jUGiciG! arrangement 49, prrcess:''
We are now to show by examination OF
the merits OF the case that TIE final Judgment
rendered in it by the prosbvtcry of New Ncrk
Is not IN harmony with the Holy Scripture. the
standards, and with the evidence submitted.
Dr. Briggs has disavowcd nothing He ex-
pressly declares that he holds firmly to all the
views contained in the inaugural address. He
SAYS: " The inaugural address was simply a con-
centration of opinions expressed more at length
in other places and under other circumstances
The defendant Is altogether unconscious Of any
substantial change Of opinion on the subject
matters of the charges for many years
The defendant has not asked for liberation. He
claims his rights under the constitution of his
church 20 teach anything and everything that
he has ever taught
Nor has he made any statements or explana-
tons which show the views. which are the
subject o. these charges TO be in harmony with
the Bible and our standards
The bare categorical repliesby Dr. Briggs to
series of questions put TO him by sympathetic
professors and directors OF the Union Semi
nary neither explain nor disavow anything
for all but one Of the questions are susceptible
of more than one meaning. and the answers
can be made by one holding the doctrines of
l'r. Briggs. They give Us no more light than
does his orthodox subscription.
II Is conceded freely ana cheerfully that Dr.
Briggs has made many orthodox statements
and that be has supported them efficiently. No
accusation l. made against him for these. Bat
h. has been charged with the propagation of
views which are believed to be heretlcal. For
these he has been put trial.
In has defense Pr Briggs made number OF
statements IN reference TO the law b. which he
Is TO be judged. which. if accepted. reduce that
law rs nearly a possible TO a nonentitv-
he contends that the court must determine
whether or no. the doctrines are essential 10
our system; but lie contends also that the de-
cIslOn must depend upon the extent Of the sys-
tenn ~ understood BIZ the Westminster diyiEcs
so that in 50 far as the doctrines Of thai system
are differently understood now than they were
b. those dlyincs he Is not to Dc tired by them.
lie fCr5cts that NC have nothing TO do with the
opinions of the Westminster diyines. If we
have TO DO wi.hany We should follow those of the
American GIvIne~. who adopted thu standards
OF l7oS as rcprc- cnta;iye of their own views
He maintains as that lie Is no: 10 be tried
bv he Bible. except 80 far as it has been en-
bodied anu defined il our standards Blu. lie
does not wish 10 be tried bv the standards OK
cent ia tar as ihcy caa he proven to be true bv
express statements OF the Scripture: nor Would
he be tried by al that part Of the standards
which IS supported by express statements of
Scripture. Inc measuring rod must consist
only ul those doctrines which are stated in the
confession and in both of the catcchlsms. II 4
doctrine Of the confession be not res.atca in
both CatecAisms then & is not 10 enter into con-
fiGcEation. even though i be shown TO be true
from the Holy Scripture. Tins fcacin< about
thc Law gives the inn rossIoH tia; the defendant
is conscious OF inherent weakness.
WHAT -EE T1.K SAYS.
There Is no need Of hedging and fencing
The book cf discipline siy,s TIC law by which