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

tinue, but to avoid discussing the merits of the
| question any further than it was necessary to
establish the specifications.
| Reading of the Record.
DR.. Briggs called for the reading OF the
stenographic report of the trial before the New
York presbytery when he protested against the
admission of the charges and in view of his
| views.
| When Col. McCook had finished DR.. Briggs
said he had read only the last part, and he
would ask Prof. Brown to read the first part Of
| his statement
| Col. McCook said that he had omitted the first
| part to save time
| DIR. Briggs replied that it was not a question
OF time now. When Prof Brown had COM
pleted the reading Prof Dufleld said that ut
this time he was clearly of the opinion that the
merits OF the case ought not to be discussed.
| In the event that this court decided that the
| presbytery erred then the charges should be
reminded back to that body. when the merits
could bo gone into.
DIR. Baker, the chairman of the judicial COM
mittee. and DIR. Herrick Johnson stated that
| they agreed with Prof. Dufield
| President Warfeld OF Lafayette College took
| the opposite ground
The moderator then ruled that as they we're
here under specifications of errors that the
appellants had the right to argue the specifica-
| lions in order to convince this court that the
presbytery was in error.
An Appeal by DIR. Dufield.
Prof. Dufiield appealed from the decision on
the ground that the only question was as to
whether the presbytery erred and this court had
nothing to dowith the question of the orthodoxy
of DR.. Briggs on these points.
The appeal was not sustained and Rev. DR..
Lampe proceeded with his argument The
charges in question accused DR.. Briggs of teach
! ing that many OF the Old Testament predic-
tions have been reversed by history and that
| the great body of Messianic prediction has not
| been fulfilled. Second, that Dr. Briggs teaches
! that the processes of redemption extend to he
world to come in the case of many who die in
sin.
At o'clock DR.. Lampe concluded his argu-
ment 1t was stated that the appellant had
used three hours and twenty minutes
DR.. Baker asked that permission be given to
Prof Brown to read from the official records
whenever, in the course Of the argument to be
| delivered by DR.. Briggs, he should desire IT.
DIR. Briggs Defense.
This permission was accorded and few min
utes after o'clock DR.. Briggs took the floor
and began his defense.
He prefaced his formal argument by state
ment in regard to his consent that the record
in the case be omitted in order to save time As
portion of this record had been printed and
distributed to the members Of the assembly he
with it
| He said that he had condensed and rear
| ranged his argument with the view of saving
time. and that MANY portions of il must be ex-
| tempore. He calle attention to the injustice
| Of his being called upon to answer errors that
| belonged to the presbytery, and If some one
| could point out what portions of the charges
and specifications were illegal he would be saved
| " treat deal of time and be freed from labor
| " ich did not belong to him.
1 40 fhnv, AnnI
ton to his protest against public prosecutor
making an appeal against verdict of acquittai.
| and also to his objections to the prosecuting
committee being regarded an original party.
| He then said that he had considered the
| charges and specifications with the view of
ascertaining what was the arrangement of the
| matter whether historical, chronological or
| sensational. He said that none of these princi-
| pies had been followed but that the charges
were presented in confused manner.
| THE REJECTED CH.RGEs.
DR.. Briggs then took up the two charges,
Nos. and Z, which the presbytery of New
York directed to be omitted. As to the one re-
lating to Messianic predictions that they are not
fulfilled, he said that he had distinctly repudaed
| this charge, and yet the prosecuting committee
| had repeated it. He then quoted the entire
reference from kuenen and said that the oms-
/ sion OF the word IF made great difference.
| The statement then read that if We insist upon
| the fulfllment of the details of tho predictive
| prophesy of the Old Testament many of
those predictions have been reversed by history.
He repudiated the charge that he taught the
| doctrine of purgatory. He complained that
| the prosecution had inserted q new doctrine
into charge seventh.
| DR.. Briggs read extracts from one of his
books in regard TO the Messianic prophecy of
| the Old Testament and said that he hoped the
court would see that he opposing kuenen
and he would leave with them to Judge whether
the charges brought against him were correct
HOLDS THOSE OPINIONS NOW.
One OF the members OF the court said that
the book he quoted from was printed in 1886.
Did DR.. Briggs hold these views at present?
why certainly l DO" replied DIR. Briggs
| THAT book is used as a text book in Union
Theological Seminary and we so over it every
| year in the classes hold those opinions then
/ and now"
He then continued to criticise the prosecu.
| ton for continuing to bring forward charges
which the presbytery had rejected. He spoke
OF the complaint made by the prosecuting COM
| mittee, that evidence was not allowed by the
presbytery. But this evidence was in support
of the two charges thrown out. and why should
| it be considered by the presbytery?
| He denied the charge of prejudice on the
| part OF the presbytery. On the contrary the
prosecution allowed to have their own
way.
DIR. Briggs was notified that the hour for ad-
journment had nearly arrived and so he stopped
at this point.
| Before taking his seat Elder GIcDougal asked
him one or two questions as to his views of
Messianic prophesy which DIR. Briggs replied
| to. and lhc--- 10 assembly. after prayer, ad-
| journed until 7:i5.