The sun., 1893-05-31
ASSEMBLY READY TO VOTE.
DIR. BRI0Gs EINIsHEs Hrs DEFENCE
<CD TIE DEBATE ENDS.

Be.mrneH by Or. Bries--He Makes the
e.m. DsNene. that ne Made Hefore the
Pre,bytery. Says that Some Csrnr.i.sion-
ers sre frejudiced, and Challenges che
Assembly to DO Him Justiee-Coi. Me-
Cook Closes for the Prosecuting Commit-
tee, and Then the Members OF the As,.rn-
bly, and OF the Presbytery Flash.
WASHINGTON. May 3o.-one OF the laity.
Elder Ketchum Of New York. conducted the
religious exercises at the opening Of tho Gen.
eral Assembly this morning. At o:30 Modera-
tor Craig opened the business session with
mayer. and the minutes Of yesterdays pro-
ceedings we're read and approved.
DR.. Young. Chairman OF the Committee on
Bills and Ovsrtures. reported that the commit
tee requested that the answer to tho over
lures regarding the deliverance OF tho Assem-
bly, OF 1902 upon the inspiration OF the Bible.
made last Saturday. be returned to the COM
mittec. This was ordered. and then DR..
Young presented a substitute. This. no snid.
Was the unanimous expression Of tho seven
teen nsmbers OF the CON mittee present, tho
largest number at any meeting yet held. 1t
reads:
In answer 10 TIE over.ures from the Presby yteries
Of Newark and Sc Louis. and the memorial OF large
uumber-more than 3OO-of the elders. deacons, and
members Of tho sbyeran Church with reference to
the deiivcrance Of tho Portland Assembly on tho In.
sprst,on OF uoiy Scripture, We would recommend tho
following;
This General Assembly reaftrm ths overture OF the
dellvernnce OF tho Assembly of 1892 touching tho
nspration OF Holy Scripture. viz, That the original
Scriptures Of the Old and Now Tsstamsnts being I'M
meLatey inspired Of God. were without error. and.
in so doing declares that the said deliverance enuu.
cates no doctrine and poses new test OF or.
thodoxy but nerprets md gives expression TO what
has always been the belief OF the Church taught In the
Westmins,sr Confession OF Faith.
After the places on the docket Of this and
eome other reports had boon arranged. the
Assembly passed 10 the consideration OF the
Briggs case. Dr. Briggs then. at $3.50 o'clock.
resumed his argument in defence Of the
charges against him.
Amended charge four. that DR.. Briggs
taught that errors may have existed in the
original text OF the Holy Scripture as 1t came
from its authors was considered at length by
the app ellee. who went into detail on all tho
shades OF meaning in which his doctrine
could be viewed. He admitted that tho allega-
ton that he taught that errors may have ex-
listed in the original text as 1t came from the
suthors was fairly accurate. Continuing. he
said:
You can consider nothing but my doctrine ~ stated
in tho charge. and determine whether IL 10 con.
not contrary TO tno essential doctrines named
IN the charge We are bound as Presbytsrans only to
the essential necessary articles OF the Westminster
Confession II to bo held to all the supposed
logca consequences OF the Westminster Confession,
do you not that you will DO held by tho dominant
party to tho whole system of the scholastic dogma
taught In certain schools of theology! BY supposed
logical deductions the Scriptures and tho Confession
will be overad by crust Of traditional opinion which
may 70 on developing into thicker and moro comprs-
hsnsive forms until Confession and Bible buried
under . mountain Of scholssticism.
Going on to say that the only errors he ever
found or ever recognized In tho Scripture had
been beyond the range OF faith or practice. and
therefore they did not impair the infalibility Of
tho Scripture as rule Of faith and practice.
DR.. Briggs said 1t was claimed that II he
recognized errors In matters beyond tho
range OF faith and practice. he excited suspi-
cion % to the infallbility OF tho Scrpturew within
the range OF faith and practice. His accusers
were entitled to that opinion for themselves.
but they had NO right to force their opinions
on him. Tho Confession did not say rule of
all things" but "the rule Of faith and prac-
hce."
You must Judge BY the Confession BY your fears
or your impressions by the conclusions You have
made. But 10 it true that fallbility In the Bible
In matters beyond the scope Of the divine
lation impsirs the infalbility In matters within
the scope OF divine rsveation We claim that does
Tho sacred writings not composed in heaven
By the holy spirits: they were not sent down from
heaven by angel hands: they were not committed to
the of perfect msn thoy were not kept by
eession Of perfect priests from that moment until the
present time. these had been tho facts In the
ws might have had Bible ipfaibe In every partiou.
lar.
But mono of these things is true God gave His Holy
Word to man In entirely different way He used
human all lties Of imperfect human
nature o ursi tho voice and the hands OF
men. He allowed the sacred writings to be edited and
reedited. arranged and rearranged. and rearrangcd
again by imperfect scribes It Is improbable that fall
Hbe men should produce series Of writings infalIbs
In every respect IL sufficient that Divine inspira-
uon and the guidance of tho Holy Spirit should make
their writings infnble rule OF faith and practice
and that the civins should tho human and
the faibe into tho external forms. into the
Al and unnecessary mAtterj into tho human setting
Of divine ideals.
ris evident that Holy ecripturs 10 "the only infsl
bic rule of faith and practice" and yet hold that
there in Holy Scripture in matters that
not in way impair its intalibity in matters Of
faith and practice.
With regard TO the charge that DR.. Briggs
taught that Moses was not tho author OF tho
Pentateuch. Dr. Briggs made the Same de-
fence he made before the Presbytery Of New
York. quoting nearly all the text Of his de-
fence on that occasion. and summed UP his Ar
guments In this way:
There is no lawful bridge by which these spscinos-
sons that Moses not the author Of the Pentateuoh
and that Isaiah is not the author OF half of the book
shat bears bis name can be brought under the chags
assrefors there is no relevancy In the specncaons
they cannot be accounted as valid.
The Westminster Confession OF Faith nowhere states
shat Aosss wrote the rentateuch that Isaiah wrote
the whole OF tho book that bears his nae Therefore
thsre can be no lawful against the Presby.
terian Church.
The testimony of Holy Scripture in the passages adr
oueed does not show that Noses wrote the PentAuch
ana that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name
tnerefore my statements are not In with holy
scripture and there Ia valid against IN on tho
ground OF Holy Scripture.
holy Scripture makes It evident that Moses did not
vnls tho PentAteuch and that Ishiah did not write
hsH the book that bears his name. Therefore my
statements are true and the prosscusn arc In conflict
with Holy Scripture.
In tho fear OF God and in tho light OF the evdsnca
you should decide You decide on tho ba.. n,
your opinions and prs,udiees without violating the
laws OF the Church and the law of God
Passing to the charge that he thought that
Dapcti1CAtiOn Ia not complato N.