Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-30

( n y
PROF. BR1Ges-"wHAr AN ABSURD STATEMENT"
claim anything and everything. tits necessary
for them to prove their claim. The court have
doubtless noticed that the prosecution have
made no attempt in their argument to present
such proof. They have made no use of these
passages of our confession whatever. On this
account l ask that you rule charges " and V
out Of court as entirely destitute of proof.
But shall find it convenient to use these pas
sages CT the confession myself and turn them
| against the prosecutors. admit that two doc
trines of our standards THAT the Holy
Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of
God by the consent of all the parts" and "the
infallible rule of Interpretation of Scripture is
the Scripture itself" But l deny that the clause
consent of all the parts is an essential doc
trine. l am glad, however. that the question
has been raised at this very point. because
upon its solution will depend question of con-
science which is likely to emerge ere long for
many Presbyterian ministers.
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCES
The internal evidences given in section "
chapter 1, to prove that Holy Scripture is the
efficacy of the doctrine majesty of the STYLE
consent of all the parts. the scope of the whole
which is to give all glory to Gcd), the full dis
covery it makes of the only way of mans sal
walton. the many other incompatible excel
lences, apd the entire perfection thereof.
If this court should still resist my arguments
and hold that consent of all the parts" is an
essential article of our creed. then let me say
that although deny that it is an essential doc
trite, yet agree to the doctrine itself. But
fail to see in what respect the doctrine that
Moses did not write the Pentateuch contra
venes the doctrine OF the consent of all the
parts" of Holy Scripture, or the doctrine that
1.-The infallible rule OF Interpretation Of Scrip
ture is the Scripture ITSELF" am sure that
hold these three doctrines 1t may be that the
prosecution can convince you that l am in
consistent in holding these doctrines. But
an argument, and if they had done SO they
could not do away with the fact that do hold
these doctrines.
THE CRAIGHEAD CASE.
You will then have to apply the law OF the
Supreme Court in the Craighead case that
mo man can rightly be convicted of heresy
by inference or implication; that is. We must
not charge an accused person with holding
those consequences which may legitimately flow
from his assertions. Many men are grossly in
consistent with themselves; and while it Is
right, in argument, to overthrow false opinions.
by tracing them in their connections and con-
sequences, it is not right to charge any man
with opinion which he disavows." Craig
head case. minutes Of the general assembly,
1924, p. 1922
You cannot convict me in the face Of this
decision of the general assembly.
THE ARGUMENTS SUMMED Up.
Let me sum up my arguments on the charges
" and v.
"a Ia nj bril nv oh
specifications, that Moses is not the author of
the Pentateuch and that 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 specifications-they cannot
be accounted as valid.
The Westminster confession of faith no
where states that Moses wrote the Pentateuch
or that Isaiah wrote the whole of the book that
bears his name. Therefore there can be no
lawful case against me in the Presbyterian
Church.
The testimony of Holy Scripture in the pas
sages adduced does not show that Moses wrote
the Pentateuch or that Isaiah wrote the book
that bears his name. Therefore my statements
not in conflict with Holy Scripture and
there is no valid case against me on the ground
of Holy Scripture.
Holy Scripture makes 1t evident that Moses
did not write the Pentateuch and that Isaiah
did not write half of the book that bears his
name. Therefore my statements are true and
the prosecution are in conflict with the Holy
Scripture.
In the fear of God and in the light of the
evidence you should decide. You cannot de-
eide on the basis of your opinions and preju-
dices without violating the laws of the church
and the law Of God"
Sanctification After Death.
DIR. Briggs then discussed the charge that he
taught that sanctifcation is not complete at
death, which doctrine the prosecution claimed
is contrary to the essential doctrine OF Holy
Scripture and of the standards of the church.
"This charge. he said. estates (1l that it is
essential doctrine Of Holy Scripture and of the
standards that the souls Of believers at
their death at once made perfect in holiness
But no proof is offered for this essential doc
trine under the charge. We shall consider
whether there is any proof for it whatever in
Holy Scripture and the standards. The charge
states that DR.. Briggs teaches that sanctifca-
ton is not complete at death This l may ac-
cept as fairly good statement of my doctrine.
The charge states that my doctrine is contrary
to the essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and
of the standards. This statement we shall have
to consider. But let me warn the court again
that they must confne themselves to the ques-
ton at issue. They have no right to condemn
me on account of any other doctrines taught
in the citations from my inaugural except the
doctrine attributed to me in the charge, namely.
NV doctrine is clearly stated in the following
words of the inaugural cited by the prosecu-
ton as part of their specifications:
There is no authority in the Scriptures
in the creeds of Christendom for the doctrine
OF immediate sanctification at death. The only
sauctification known to experience, 10 Chris
tian orthodoxy and to the Bible is progressive
sanctifcation. Progressive sanctfication after
death Is the doctrine of the Bible and the
church,
THE DOCTRINE OF THE STANDARDS.
1t is claimed by the adversaries that this
statement is against the Westminster stand
ards, which teach that the souls of believers
at their death at once made perfect in holi-
ness" They cite from the confession. chapter
NXXII. a. from the larger catechism, ques-
ton sc, and from the shorter cha techsm ques-
ton 81. But DR.. Birch in his argument made
no use whatever of these passages from our
standards; and Mr.. McCook used only one of
them. question 81 OF the shorter catechism. in
order to state that it teaches a doctrine directly
contrary to my doctrine. But that was n mere
assertion without proof. and no proposal was
made to show that that doctrine is an essential
doctrine of the Standards Therefore ask that
you decide in accordance with law and usage i'll
courts of justice and throw out the charge
which is so destitute of proof. But inasmuch