Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1893-05-30
PROF, BRIGGS SPEAKING
Addressing the Assembly in
His Own Behalf.
THE FAMOUS TRIAL UNDER WAY
Time Allowance for the Arguments of
Each Side Settled On-Col. McCoOk
Against Briggs.

Against Briggs.
WASHINGTON, May 80. - Long before
the opening hour this morning the crowd
about the doors of the meeting place of the
Presbyterian General Assembly assumed
greater proportions than it. has at any time
since the Assembly began Its work. Not
long after the doors were opened the
places reserved for visitors were filled and
no more could be accommodated within
| the church walls.
DIR. Briggs resumed his plea in his own
defense which he began last night amid
almost breathless excitement. The intense
| interest had not abated during the night.
| The work of the day was as usual, begun
with a half hours devotional service.
After some delay in arranging the pro-
gramme the trial proper of DIR. Briggs be-
gan yesterday.
The closest attention was given DR..
Baker, chairman of the judiciary COM
| mittee, when he rose from his place on
the platform, to make the report of the
committee as to the disposition of time in
| the trial. The arrangement contained in
the report, he said, was entirely agreeable
| to both sides. The appellants would open
/ and close the case, four and a half hours
being allowed them, while the appellee
| CDR Briggs would be allowed seven hours.
The New York Presbytery, from whose
| judgment the appeal was taken, would be
| allowed two hours, with each speaker linn
| tied to ten minutes and following them the
/ members of the General Assembly would
i be heard in two hours under the ten min
ute rule Then the vote would be taken
| ON each specification
Dr. Baker said the appellants would in
troduce in their opening case all matters
| they intended to present. No new matter
/ would be introduced.
After some desultory debate on the
conduct of the debate" the report was
adopted unanimously and the Moderator
arose to caution the people to the manner
of their bearing during the trial. He said
| neither party should under any Cir
cumstances, introduce extraneous matter
| No personalities should be INDUCED in and
he hoped that if any misstatement was
made that the party of the other side, in
| all brotherly love and Kindness, would call
| attention to it.
| These preliminaries had occupied about
/ half an hour and it was just 1905 o'clock
| when Col. McCook took the stand and the
| great trial might be fairly said to have be-
gun. His purpose at that time was merely
to notify the court and appellee of the cita-
tions and references which the prosecution
l expected to use in presenting their case.
| Col. McCook stated that the appellants
would use and refer to Ger tain designated
parts of the printed document containing
the record of the case; minutes of the
Presbytery of New York, Vol. IA; steno-
graphic reports of the trial in the Presby-
terry of New York Nov. 8, 1892 to Jan. 8,
1885, third edition of the 'Inaugural adj
lical Study" ''Who Wrote the
Pentateuch." and "Who Wrote Isaiahl"
DR.. Briggs article in the Presbyter-
ian review for April, 1884; "Newman's
Apologize Pro Vita Sua;' Martineau's
"Seat of Authority in Religion" Andover
Review volume 10; Kuenen's Prophets
and Prophecies in Israel" 1877.
Col. McCook stated in closing that the
| appellants hoped and expected to use but
little more than half of the time assigned
TO them by the committee, and he intro
duced DIR. Lampe to present the appellants
opening argument.
DIR. Lampe's Argument.
/ DR.. Joseph J. Lampe then took the floor
/ and began his argument. In this he re-
vived the two charges against DR.. Briggs
/ which were removed by the New York
Presbytery
He spoke for two hours In substance
his argument was as follows: The five
technical grounds of appeal, viz: Irregu-
larity in tho proceedings of the New York
| Presbytery. receiving improper and declin-
1 ing to receive important testimony, mani
festation of prejudice in the conduct of the
case and mistake or injustice in the decis-
ion were brify reviewed.
Under the first head, the rejection of the
| charges relating to DR.. Briggs theory of
productive prophecy and of redemption
after death were examined. He held that
this was an error of the presbytery of suf-
ficient Importance to warrant sustaining
the appeal. They had been stricken out of
| the charges by the presbytery because of
the disclaimers and disavowels of DR..
Briggs. plea of not guilty was not suf-
ficient evidence in mans defense. Judi
cial process was necessary to determine
whether his written words, upon which
the charges are based. or his verbal dis
Chalmers were to be taken as the truth.
Under the fourth ground of appeal the
New York Presbytery's verdict was exam
ined This contained a statement to the
effect that. in acquitting DR.. Briggs, the
Presbytery was not to be understood as
expressing approval of the critical and
theological views embodied in his inaugu-
raj address," This could only mean that
they had taken DR.. Briggs at his own
word. By their own confession, therefore,
they had not decided the case on the law
and evidence.
The merits of the case were then exam
ined to show that the New York verdict
was not in harmony with the Holy Scrip
L lures, tue OlduudTuS, anu Will CuS oNl-
| dence submitted. DIR. Briggs had dis
avowed nothing. He expressly declared
that he still held firmly to all the views
contained in the inaugural address. Nor
had he made any statements or explana-
lions which show these views to be in har-
mony with the Bible and the stand ards.
DIR. Briggs accused Professionals of the
fault of not extending the process of re-
demption to the vast periods of time of the
middle state between death and the resur
/ Hection
1t was claimed that he dsavowed this
doctrine by categorically answering ques-
ton propounded to him in private by di
rectors of Union seminary. But such a
categ >rical answer under such cirCum
stances proves nothing and disavows moth
ing, the more because since that time Dr.
Briggs had affirmed his adherance te
everything which he has stated in the in
| augural, both to manner and form
These were dangerous utterances, all the
1 fbory Prr