Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-05-30

Col. McCook stated in closing that the
appellants houed aud expected to use but
little more than half of the time assigned
10 them 0y tue committee, and he intro
duced DR.. Lampe 70 present the appel
lants' opening argument 81,
DR. Lampe said that in accordance WIN
the book Of discipline the appellants assign
five grounds in appeal, namely: lrregu'
larity ia the proceedings OF the Pres0ytery
OF New York; receiving improper ana de-
cliuing TO receive important testimony;
manifestation of prejudice in the conuuct
OF the case, and mistake or injustice IN tne
decision.
He proceeded TO discuss the first ground
from a purely legal standpoint, and lald
much stress on the fact that DR.. Briggs
objected 10 going TO trial on two OF the elgnt
charges against him in the Presoytery oe-
cause he had never taught the doctrines
with teaching which he was charged.
Whv, then, asked DR.. Lampe, did he con-
sent To 90 on trial on the remaining chargesi
Was il because he has taught the doctrines
therein alleged If that is the reason,
then why did he plead not guilty TO these
remaining chargess II he has not taught
auv Of the doctrines alleged in the amended
eight charges, why not go on trial on all
eight OF them, or else disclaim having COM
mitted offenses contained in all eight OF
them A plea Of not guilty is not suf1clent
Ey:S xcE IN A MANS DEFENSE.
Dr Tamne revisyed the other grounds
Of appeaI. and conftnuine, -Said: "Dr.
BRIGGS not only believes the dooSStn
that be breaches, but he propagates tnem
He has disclaimed nothing, but has rear
firmed the doctrines he avowed In his ln-
augural address May he preach that the
redemption of the soul extends into the
next worlds IL Is neither candid nor nom
e.t The case was thrown out OF court De-
c use they feared the hnsl judicial ar
rs igument"
DR.. Briggs has taken the matter into his
OWN hands, and be claims the right under
his constitution 10 preach anything ana
everything. DR.. Lempe said DR.. Brlggs's
tsac t5gs cOnhieted with both Scripture
and the standards; they touched matters
which was vitally essential to Presoy-
terians. whose faith and practice were
based solely on the authority OF Holy
Scripture, aud that according TO tnese
views we must recognize the Churcn
OF Rome as a great lountah oA
divine authority, aOle TO give men,
without or above the Bible,
saving knowledge OF God and divine assur-
ance. This, be averred, would be complete
abandonment Of the reformation position;
and for the Presbyterian Church 1t would
meaD denominational suicide. Whether or
mot DR. Briggs would regard this as in any
sense a calamity could not be determined
with certainty, for he regarded IL to be the
duty Of the hour to destroy all denomlna-
tional barriers which separated Protes-
tants and form an Alliance between FRO
testantism and ROmanism, and all other
branches Of christendom." (Quotaton
from the writings OF DR.. Brlggs)
T2acass was nero taken.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At the afternoon session DR.. Lampe
took up the charge that DR.. Briggs taught
that the processes Of redemption ex-
tended 10 the world TO come in the cases Oh
many who died in sin. and asserted tnat
this doctrine was an offense, according to
the book Of discipline.
In conclusion DR. Lampe appealed TO the
Assembly 10 reject the verdict OF acqult-
tai bv the New York Synod and TO set tne
church right before the world
DR.. Briggs then began his defense. he
said that he had been accused OF teaching
thar many Of the old testament predictions
had been reversed by history and that the
great BODY Of the messianic prediction had
nor been and would not be fulfilled, which
was contrary 10 the essential doctrine OF
/ HOLY Scripture and Of the standards OF the
/ Church that God is true. OmniScient and
unchangeble. This he had repudiated and
would ask the Assembly TO hear exactly
what he had said. but which the committee
| on prosecution had omitted. de had Sald
| this:
"Kuenan has shown that if we insist up
on the Nul6llment Of the details OF the
| propbesv of the Old Testament, many OF
the predictions mad been reversed by his
tory and the great body Of the Messianlc
prediction has not only never been fulfilled
| out csnnot now De fulfilled. for the reason
/ that its own time has passed forever"
An depended on the word 'ff," which
the committee had omitted. He had dis
claimed this charge before and disclaimed
10 now lie also disclaimed that ne was
guilty of teaching as charged IN charge {,
that the process Of redemption EXTENDED 10
the world TO come in the case OF many who
died in sin, stating that be had repudiated
| the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory,
also the doctrine or future probation and
| regeneration after death, or any beginning
OF CHRISTIAN LIFE AFTER DEATH.
Continuing on this subiect, DR. Briggs
said: you have heard attributed 10 me
the dreadful doctrine OF race redemption,
/ but il YOU will look into my inaugural, you
| will see that all 1 have to say on that sub
| iect is connected with the incarnation OF
| Jesus Christ The trouble with these
| brethren is that they are taking too mar
row view of the doctrine. l would that L
could teach such comfortable doctrine;
and if the time ever comes that L
can l will gladly lay down
nv ministry in the Presbyterian Church
and 20 forth to teach the hope of salvation
| Of some OF those who apparently died with
| out regeneration in this world. But DO
/ not hold that belief now. i cannot"
DR.. Briggs made legal argument against
| the consideration of these rejected charges
| bv the General Assembly, until after they
| had been tried by the New York Presby-
| terry. The Assembly then took a recess un-
I I'll Z 40 p. m.
TIE EVENING SESSION.
At the evening session DR.. Briggs de-
fend the action of the Presbytery at great
/ length. and then passed to a discussion OF
/ the logic Of the case.
DR.. Briggs said it was alleged that the
New YORK Pres0ytery made mistake In
| the logic. L. had been held that the case
was so simple that logic demanded YER
/ dict Of guilty. Logic was necessary 10 all
good practice, but like all good things had
many counterfeits.
DR.. Briggs held that it was simply nee
| essary 70 prove that the doctrines attrio-
uted to him were contained IN the inaugral.
/ He could not be held responsible for the
] inferences OF the prosecution.
The defendant had admitted that he
| taught that errors may have existed IN the
| original text OF the scriptures; that Moses
| is not the author OF the Pentateuch; that
I Isaiah cid not write more than bali his
| book; that sancuhcatiOn is not complete at
I death. He had not admitted the other
| things.
AS 10 the doctrine touching sauctidca-
I ton, denied that the phrase at once"
/ which the prosecution had arbitrarily
| inserted in the Westminster definition
when il was their own interpretation OF 1t,
| was essential.