Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-01

/: WASHINGTON, D. c.,
since this agitation had been going on. He
declared that the greatest works had been per-
formed In those parishes where there was the
most liberation.
DR.. Dufield of Princeton said there was
single question to decide, not . personal,
whether certain acknowledged overtures were
in accord with Presbyterian standards. Every
man in the church is under An obligation now
TO sustain the purity Of the standards. DR..
Duffeld took issue with DR.. Briggs ON the lat
ters theory Of three sources of divine knswl-
edge. the Bible, the church and the reason. II
the Bible subject to the reason or the reason to
the Bible?
Elder VIM. NJ. tanning of the presbytery Of
New brunswick, N. j., spoke in favor Of not
sustaining most of the grounds Of appeal, but
he believed that the errors alleged regarding
inerrancy should be sustained.
Rev. Robert A. Bryant Of Newton, N. J., said
the question was not the effect these teachings
would have upon the young of the church. The
question was whether Dr. Briggs views over
threw any essential features OF the Scriptures
not whether the individuals present agreed with
| these views, and in case Of doubt this must be
given to the defendant. The case had been
tried on it's merits by competent iudicatory
and in point of brains and ability the presby-
terry Of New York need yield to none in the
country.
Elder John d. Simmons Of Newton presby-
terry, New Jersey. said the old Bible was good
enough for him.
Rev. Alfred J. Snyder of the West Jersey
presbytery said he could not accent the
acknowledged teachings of DR.. Briggs.
Elder Morris H. Straston Of New Jersey held
that the decision Of the presbytery considered
DIR. Briggs views within the confines of the
church. Many Of the discrepancies noted by
DIR. Briggs were unearthed ninety-nine years
ago by Thos. Payne in his sage Of Reason"
and vet the church has lived. Some one hos
all the time been advocating these same views
and the only novelty now that they should
be argued by Presbyterian minister. As q
result he would be willing to vote to terminate
the relations between DR.. Briggs and the
church.
Rev. H. Milton Shields Of Rio Grande pres
bytery, New Mexico, who said he was the young
! est member OF the assembly and the youngest
| alumnus OF Union Seminary. He said Moses
and others had no canon or Scriptures as au-
| thority yet he found God. He argued vigor-
ously to maintain DR.. Briggs position. Union
Seminary men were preaching the gospel Of
Christ and were true a needle to the Presby-
terrain Church He urged them not to issue a
heresy trial on mere words.
r. W. d. Bryan Of New Mexico spoke for
chilly and ably against sustaining the appeal.
The only question was whether the presbytery
| erred in its verdict. 1t was mistake to say
that the church or the Bible was on trial 1t
was not the only thing on trial was a man.
1t was an unfortunate predicament that they
must vote to acquit a man and vet at the same
time to refute his doctrine This was not the
fault of the assembly. 1t was the fault Of the
prosecuting committee in the careless manner
they had drawn up the charges. Mr.. Bryan
spoke in the highest terms of DR.. Briggs as
schollr and Christian.
Rev. Joseph ]. Gilchrist Of Santa Fe, New
Mexico. spoke of mud baths. and said he never
heard before Of muddying up the water in order
| to get clean baths. He criticised Dr. Briggs,
and said he had not acted in good faith in not
having changed his utterances in later editions
OF the inaugural address.
DR. Brown protested against the speakers
language as an attack on DR.. Briggs character,
but as the moderator had not heard the words.
the speaker was allowed to proceed.
Rev. DIR. A. v. V. Raymond of Albany, N. Y,
entered plea for Bible that he could trust.
False doctrine had never been stamped out by
judicial action. Falsehood was downed by
truth not by votes. He believed in the Bible
as he had never done before and only those
who had had doubts about the Bible could
realize the Importance Of this trial. If his sons
ever came into the shadow of doubt as he had
done he prayed God there might be man like
DIR. Briggs to lead them out into the light OF
truth. He spoke earnestly for liberty in
thought and study.
Rev. j. Lovejoy Robinson Of the Binghamp-
ton, N. Y, presbytery said he believed the YER
dict of the New York presbytery Just. He
did not believe it necessary to hedge the Scrip
| lures about against the studies Of loving and
reverent friends. He was not content with his
vote to lay condemnation upon one who was
living so near God as DR.. Briggs words showed
he did.
Rev. DR.. John Van G. Nellis of the Bing-
hampton presbytery spoke Of DR.. Briggs teach
ing rs misleading and dangerous.
Dr. Robert Court Of Boston, said they were
not in assembly to decide rules for action for
other souls. nor to look into tine future for
probable effects, but simply to see that the
UNCONVENTIONAL rules Of the Presbyterian
Apostle Paul had quoted Moses he must believe
that Moses had something to do with the book
that bears his name.
ELDER MPHERsoN.
Elder Eben NJ. Mcpherson Of Boston pres
bytery said the errors which DIR. Briggs as
serted might exist in the Bible were not essen
tial and did not affect the Bible as the infalble
rule of faith and practice. He had seen as
Sunday school teacher no injurious effects from
DR.. Briggs utterances but he had seen injur-
ious effects from the dismal doctrine of fatal
ism taught in their confession. Men changed
their minds. In twenty-five years the men who
are prosecuting DR.. Briggs may change their
minds.
Rev. Lansing Van Schomhaven Of the synod
OF New 1 ork said that they were asked by the
prosecuting committee to condemn as a hereto
the man who was pre-eminent in :he land as
scholar and hand him over to the devil In
searching the Bible a student he had but fol-
lowed in the footsteps Of Christ. Christ him.
self had said that the truth was in Him more
than in the Scriptures. devoted Christian
had searched the Scriptures and had there
found Christ, and for this the assembly was
asked to convict him. He must protest against
any such decision.
Rev. DIR. Edward P. Sprague Of Cayuga said
he was indebted to DIR. Smith for saying all but
those set forth in the fifth ground Of appeal
were minor and important errors. The only
question whether the presbytery had
erred in their verdict. He insisted that 1t had
not been proved that the presbytery had erred
in its verdict.
IN FAVOR OF DIR. BRIGGS.
Elder Jared T. Newman Of Cayuga presby-
terry spoke on behalf Of an element not hith-
erto representative who had not always
been believers. He had found Christ through
the reason 1t was not DIR. Briggs teachings
that made skepricism. but the hardness that
would shut out all study and liberality.
Rev. James T. Garvin a missionary in Chile
and graduate Of Union, held that the nerr-
ancy Of the Scriptures was but a theory, and