The sun., 1893-05-31

L
taught the doesrlso " ot the middIs state BE-
n .se ho s s Death in s
SEss, III s .ssa sds
| BY tho appellants. numberof the members
h 81 wFs addss
eIsIs; q :sT e;s q @
dd many thing. which believe % nav. been wrong.
na siy' and %, ss SsS.Ir.d
@ @ al, sS Of So.. A1d % o S'y yoy sTs
views Of tse dstendsnt but eshbi personal hostility
sSSxa ~, srsumen. the question: Of aiming
the snreH the has been az Az
TO him and hts position.
| Passing TOT consideration Of the ten speei-
PfesbyterS fe br Briggs 1 said tdpfssd he Would leave
most Of them to members Of the Presbytery
a blind. endorsement OF the. sfeuments ad.
vanced by the prosecution. lie continued:
Ea Sp e. SsffSss Sf
adsli.nts and dangerous p9s,on yon are pntiin,T
Sd i .euIs TO justly yonr.slsss before Chris
9r fs: s: sa III: s ssy
s AZ iss Sss al sas.
Fountains m q through wSsa Goa eo
nnnicates 70 men 49,
.asa I by hG a.s q the sy r Of r,
~ i: :sa ..S,,.ssSs Iss.iy; 1ss Y,
IL sRs ss: IL i en- % 81
IL sa!' l. are ySq READY n TO s'sys ns,S,ns ah,
HIM through the personal relations that We enjoy in
@ 0H ns ss 70 .apt proS aGi
gated in tho history offhe Church.
The Doctor then. read an effective extract
pr,h of q IN n n n
Il lord t"Se Then s he re"a from the e do
contrast with Newman and Martineau. which
had heen hnrped upon by the prosecution to
mitted that It was offensive to many Of the
s' ts 's sss
Sa B! hIsTs: AZ
%as shsi1 S as
!: Z; GRAHAM = fhi!adsIPhis Pssssntsa. z rssS::
O'clock as tribute to the memory OF the ma
tion's patriotic dead. -.
eren or
tain the fssoiatqn !!,n at that time and took
1t the afternoon session DR.. Briggs con-
tlnued his defence. He, snid he would on
deavor To- @ show W. thas his views we're. Tere net incGn.
continued:
Wish to f0,,n
S !.
.h'
the texts wnien We hn,e IN the 5es. ie We can Gs
gronab,s that the texts we Sou! discover
Hut lave refused to .nrm ,ha. .ns.. in
the original because It is unscentihc md
tits unschoariy and is against the truth loving spirit
We have no certain evidence. have always refrained
ssem sen S' Ss''p'D's' Nu' every N''"'A ''H'' A"'
Copious quotations were made by DR.. Briggs
ana Prof Brown Of Union Theological Semi
hcasion alter r. death. br. i BrrCs e read mostly mostly
his sse sd Prd Be%n Row iS From
his published writings. He nut all the force OF
ss yGes IT part q n M
said:
fSs at1 hasn hH :@a .s:
snd
e sv. and I'M Of % no ssss S
rsss @ fssssf sna shild mother and S.Ss ma:sr and
ana Inc sn h sna
to i
sw e aSs o
Gss dS
;ss. 4.
OF God. Henables us to comprehend the whole life OF
o" nh hs LAY and al s Its % | s IN
creation and Proyidence under grand conception.
the divine sanctifcation OF man.
This concluded the ,.n argument & Of Dr: Briggs
and raising his hands. lie concluded his de-
my
rth Iorth in y sassnss you
Go i
justice in your Judgment
court by Moderator era ie to close the case. for
hseaD hH s Brr fhs PUndi snd
that the remainder Of the afternoon session
the @ DISPOSAL @ oi the @ proseeutoD SO that Il the
court did not interrupt him the case. so far as
hs ws the e
tho w
ths DEFENDANT had acknowledged in The court rt
below and before this court. but he regretted
do not nsmit ths isets stated thsrein rhis his
"fs Reierrins & I" the Specifications OF error i'm
putting prejudice on the part Of some m em bers
al 9uoted the declaration Of the trustees Of III Union
seminary that they would defend Prof
fact that these trustees went into the court OF
the Prosbytery "possibly pnprejudiced" and
cation TO acqult Prof. Briggs.
Col. McGook contended that the case before
the Presbytery was one OF fact and not OF law:
that tho charges eontaine ed only matter which
the defendant admitted having uttered: that
the verdict should have been guilty Tho
case was one which could not be decided by
occasional polemics on Presbyterian doctrines. |
but must be decided by the highest tribunal
in accordnnce with the constitution and
standards OF the Church.
incs OF the defendant. and asserted. despite
Dr. BriGgss avowals and explanations. that
they were In opposition to the Holy Scripture
and Confession Of Faith. and therefore. gross
error in the opinion Of the Church. He also
asserted that tho doctrines AT issue were es-
ssntiai. notwithstanding Prof. Briggs's dec
laratlon OF opinion to the contrary. In con-
ciusion Col McCook said:
1t seems almost incredible that the appellee after