Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-25
DIR. BRIGGS POSITION.
How He Stands Before the Presby-
terrain General Assembly.
THE INERRANCY QUESTION.
The Deliverance of the Assembly of 1892
and the Defendants Protest Against 1t
Some Extracts From DIR. Briggs Defense
That VIII Prove of Interest.

Some Extracts From DIR. Briggs Defense
That VIII Prove Of Interest.
DR.. Chas A. Briggs stands before the general
assembly in case that body votes to entertain
the appeal very much q defendant be-
fore Q court which had already passed on one
Of the most important issues in the case, that
of inerrsncy. II the utterances of the last
general assembly are considered binding on
the present one it seems to be q logical conse-
quence that the assembly cannot tolerate any
tmputation Of error in the Scriptures. even in
unessential parts. After the consideration Of
the appeal in DIR. Briggs case the general as
sembly Of 1892 adopted the following deliver
Ance:
THE BIBLE WITHOUT IRRoR.
The general assembly would remind all
under its care that it 10 . fundamental doctrine
that the Old and New Tessaments are the in
spirsd and infallible word Of God. Our church
holds that the inspired word as it came
from God 10 without error. The assertion
Of the contrary cannot but shake the
confidence Of the people in tho sacred books.
All Who enter Office in our church solemnly
profess to receive them the only in
fallibls rule Of faith and practice. Ii
they change their belief on this point
Christian honor demands that they should
withdraw from our ministry. They have no
right to use the pulpit or the chair OF the pro-
lessor for the dissemination Of their errors I'M
til they are dealt with by the slow process OF
discipline. But if they do so act, then presby-
teries should speedily inserposs and deal
with them for violation Of ordination
vowa The vow taken at the beginning Is
obligatory until the party taking it Is honor
ably and properly released. The general
assembly enjoins upon all ministers, elders and
presbyteries to be faithful to tbs duty here i'm
posed"
II this deliverance is to rule the action of the
assembly Of 1898 those who have given con-
siderstion Of the case think the prosecution viii
have a much better chance Of securing con-
viction Of heresy than it had before the New
York presbytery.
DE. BRIGGS PROTEST.
DR.. Briggs in his address before the New
York presbytery in his own defense protested
most vigorously against this deliverance and
argued that it had no binding power
He said: (a) The general assembly when
1t makes a deliverance gives the opinion Of all
those who may be present and who may con-
sent to 1t. such deliverance has no more
weight than the names of such persons can give
It. 1t does not bind the minority.
under the constitution to make dogma by de-
iverance.
(c) The general assembly has no authority
under the constitution to give an lnterpreta-
ton of the doctrine Of the church by deliver
ance and impose such Interpretation upon the
presbyteries and the ministry. (d) 1t was q gross
breach Of propriety and a fragrant violation
Of right for the general assembly to attempt to
decide case by deliverance which it
had few hours previous directed
to be approached by judicial process
(e) The ordination vow is just as binding
the general assembly which imposes it
IL is upon the minister who takes it, The gen.
eral assembly ought not to take the initiative
In such a violation Of obligation % If the
Presbyterian Church in the United States
of America should ever decide In
Judicial case accordance with said
deliverance no self-respecting biblical scholar
could for a moment remain in that branch of
the Presbyterian Church. He would need no
induce him to withdraw and connect himself
with a church that was true to its constitution
aud its history.
DIFFICULT TASK.
After referring to a number Of scholarly au-
thorIties DR.. Briggs continued: These cita-
tons might be continued to enormous ex-
tent. 1t would not take q scholar long to decide
between the authority OF the members OF the
general assembly at Portland and the authority
ern divines. who have given such emphatic
statements Of their opinion.
THE court will see the great difficulty Of the
task now imposed upon me in view of this de-
iverance Of the general assembly. And yet
do no hesitate to undertake IL In the fear Of
God and with a firm conviction that can show
you that the general assembly at Portland by
this deliverance violated the constitution of our
church and promulgated doctrine which is not
authorized by Scripture of orr standards"
1AFa aI1Olr 81, I<,.
that his utterances are in conflict with the
standards Of the church and makes a most pow
erful argument in support of his position.
Some interesting extracts from his defense
are given below:
NEW QUESTIONS IN RELIGION.
"There are many new questions in religion,
doctrine and morals which the church has not
defined and where the guidance of Holy Scrip
ture is yet not altogether clear. about
which men in our time differ widely.
differ seriously, differ in some cases in
passion and bitterness But these questions
cannot lawfully come under the forms Of
ecclesiastical process in our courts because
our constitution has not yet determined
them II may be that the Presbyte-
rian Church will have to define some of
these questions, and it may be necessary to
divide the denominations of Christians
now existing and TO organize new denom-
nations distinguished by their attitudes
toward these Questions But the Presby-
terrain Church cannot by majority vote in
presbytery, synod or general assembly deter
mine any such questions except in the forms of
our constitution, bya revision of the confession
after full elaboration. by the vote Of two thirds
of the presbyteries- Theinaugural address NAV
contain ten or twenty dangerous errors in the
opinion OF some Of YOU but that is not the
question which as jurors you have to decide
II such dangerous errors are not in irrecon-
cilable conflict with essential and
necessary articles Of the Westminster
confession. You have constitutional right TO
deal with then. in this presbytery in the forms
of ecclesiastical process. The only thing
you can do lawfully is to overture the
general assembly TO amend the con-
fessiOn Of faith as to exclude
the dangerous opinions OF DIR. Briggs. II Won
should succeed in such revision and bring
about such q decision in a legal manner he
would use his right of protest and then
retire from the presbytery and not wait
for q judicial decision Of his case.
This principle is OF vast Importance But il
Il has been entirely disregarded by the prosecu-
ton in the amended charges and in their arpu-
Inent upon them Even il it be
true that my teachings contravene the
seven doctrines of the confession specified
In the amended charges. Of not more than ore
of them could il be said that they are danger
Gus errors in the sense that they contrsyene
essential doctrines of our standards"