Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-31


against it The question 10 not whether DR..
Briggs can be countenanced, but whether his
views come within the limits Of Q tolerant
liberal Presbyterianism.
ELDER JOHN D. ABBY.
Elder John D. Abby Of Ozark presbytery,
synod Of Missouri, thought they had lost sight
OF the case. Had the presbytery Of New York
tried the case on its merits? Neither the world
nor the church could tell what the presbytery
had decided. The assembly had to decide now
whether the church had any convictions and
whether 1t had the courage to express them.
They wanted to know whether they were
obliged to carry around q pocket edition Of .
Bible, edited according to the higher criti-
cism, in order to know what the Bible Is. That
was what they would tell the church to do if
they refused to sustain this appeal
DIR. JAMES q. BROOKS.
DR.. Brooks Of st. Louis said that it was not
DR.. Briggs who was on trial, but the Bible.
'Ihe question is whether we have q Bible that
is worth having. 1t goes far beyond DR.. Briggs
and must not be decided on sympathy. He
may be all that q gentleman and q Christian
should be, and yet if We acquit him we 60 be-
fore the world in the guise Of men who believe
In Bible that we do not consider worthy Of
evidence. To say that the Bible in its original
form may have had mistakes is like q man who
does not believe in a Savior because he never
saw him. There is not verse from Genesis to
revelations that does not preach the inerrant,
infallible and verbal inspiration of every part
OF the book. II DIR. Briggs can point to one
hundred and twenty-four scholars who doubt
the inerrancy Of the Bible I can point to ten
times"
Rap went the hammer Of the moderator,
Tor DR.. Brooks time was up.
REV. DIR. NIccoLLs.
Rev. DIR. 8. ]. Niccolls of st. Louis, who pre-
sented the minority report on the question OF
entertaining the appeal. said he was anxious for
q verdict that would set forth true doctrine, re-
move Misrepresentation and at the same time
be In accordance with Christian tolerance He
hastily dissected the alleged errors Of the pres
Dytery. AS to the fifth ground alleging mis-
take In the verdict he said he could vote to sus-
tain it. He believed the verdict should
De modified In some particulars in order to re-
Duke the dangerous teachings, but if their vote
TO sustain the appeal was to declare that here
after all who entertained such views we're guilty
OF heresy be would be sorry for it. Such a YER
dict instead Of giving peace, he said, would
continue the disturbance in the church. II
would be regarded by thousands in the
church as victory Of intolerance and
not wise solution of the question. In
his Judgment DIR. Eriggs attributed an
authority and an efficacy to reason which
are denied by the Scriptures and their stand
ard. For these reasons he was in favor of sus-
tanning the appeal SO as to modify the verdict
1t would be fatal mistake of the assembly to
make their rejection test of orthodoxy. Dr.
Niccolls was cut off by the gavel before he
could finish his argument.
DIR. W. W. HARsHA.
DR.. Harsha Of the synod Of Nebraska said
that when he came to the assembly he was
satisfied that there were dangerous things
taught in DR.. Briggs inaugural and that these
dangers were the ones that were troubling the
church. His mind not then made up on
the point of the heresy Of the accused. He
sympathized with the defendant, but realizing
that Dr. Briggs had not retracted single one
OF the views expressed in the inaugural his
head must get the better Of his heart
aud he must vote against the defendant.
DIR. Harsha went on to consider matters in
the inaugural in some detail. DR.. Briggs had
explained bis use of the word source" in his
address as meaning channel, but any one famil-
lar with English knew the words could not be
synonymous. As to the doctrine of sanctifica-
ton. 1t was largely q matter of conjecture and
opinion. but it was dangerous field to open
up, because it might result in a postponement
on the part OF many Of "a consideration OF their
souls welfare.
DIR. Harsha was in the midst of speaking
when he was called down at the end of his short
three minutes.
TAKING RECESS.
1t was then 1890 aud motion to take re-
cess until 2:30 O'Clock was carried.
The assembly had not at that hour got
through with half the roll. and it seemed prob
able that unless the rule was changed the whole
afternoon would be taken up with the three
minute speeches of members.
Work of the Lobby.
Some members Of the ''lobby" in the assem-
bly, today are diligently circulating petition
asking the board of education to appoint Rev.
W. H. Roberts, DID,, stated clerk of
the assembly, to succeed Rev. DIR. Poor
as the secretary Of that board. This
movement, at this time, is regarded
as injudicious. since DIR. Roberts. though a man
Of ability and experience, is considered to be
quite partisan in his views upon the Briggs
case and questions relating to the Union
Theological Seminary, and his appoint
ment would, it is urged. inevitably intensity
party spirit and disturb the peace and work OF
the church. 1t is safer and better, say the con-
servatives. to let the board select its own Sec
rotary in its own way and according to its own
judgment.