Evening Star Newspaper, May 30, 1893, Page 5

THE EVENING STAR: WASHINGTON, D. ©. TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1893—TEN PAGES. EXTRA SOUVENIES. ecient Tur pata Royal has pleasure in announcing the arrival of 200 pieces of India Silks, which are added to the Souvenir list of the Summer “Opening” at the following astoundins prices, with only the proviso that not more than o2¢ dress leasth shall be sold each visitor. INDIA SILKS For ALS) Cents. QUALITY SILKS. LIGHT AND DARK GROUNDS WITH FIGURE IN THE VERY LATEST AND MOST EXCLUSIVE DESIGNS AND COLORS 850 SILKS FOR 39s. Deousa rae orreatxa oF THe LATE SENSATIONAL BAR- GAINS WE OFFERED SUCH QUALITY SILK3 FOR 50e YARD, BUT NOT IN SUCH DESIRABLE STRIPES. WE HAVE BLACK GKOUNDS WITH STRIPES OF BLUE, WHITE, OLD ROSE, WHITE GROUNDS WITH CIEL BLUE, CARDINAL, NAVY AND BLACK STRIPES, GRAY WITH WHITE AND HELIOTROPE STRIPES, NAVY WITH WHITE STRIPES. THESE ARE 31 S@-The above are only supplementary to tho list of the “‘Opening”* Souvenirs which iuclads mention of Summér Parnishings of every kind for map, woman and child. THE VALAIS RovAL, 12TH ST. AND PA. AVE. List of Souvenirs. tem, reduced prices quoted as souvenirs of the “‘Ovening” of the new season's zcods, art! D. Goons AM Black Stiks and Bac Fabrics at 10 per cont Boe yard Jay Haspxencuer Deranruesz Sovvenms. 12%e Men’s and Ladies’ Handkerchiefs. ~ Men’s ond Ladies? Handkerchiofs .. Ladies’ Linen and Silk Handkerchief Men's aud Ladies’ Handkerchiefs. >: Lavtios’ Homstitched Lawn Handkerchief Se Childrens Fancy H.8. Handkerehiets Fax Deesetaert Sovvesms. $2 Exclusive Novelty Japanese Fans. 81.50 Sitk Japanese Fans. $1 Fans, S0c, and 73e Fans Oc Jap. and Quill Feather Fi nd 3o Fans... PARTMENT E 23.48 Japanese Sereens.. netting He capery Nets and Parasol Cover, pee | Learner Goons Sovvenms. and Mil:inery Eibbons, | _onetenthof marked prices of all Te Shawl Straps... eas Silk, Leather and Canvas Belts... Laties’ and Men's Belts, all sizss. 1 Ladies and Men's Bolts. Se Pucket Books and Parses 149 | 30 Pocket Books, Card Cases, Re... Lies | #1 Pocket Books, Cart ke. * 47e Shopping B c elsewhere). $1 Shoppine and c ine Baws, $2 Shopping and Chatelaine Begs. | Necewear Deranruest Sovvenms. tie Ladies’ New Style Knot Ties. Percale C! Seis Collar and Cuffs, "auntlercy Sets... a Be 48 2 a SEREEE World's Pair Foarist Raching.. tenth off prices of otier Ruchinga. v Deoanruesr Souvesms. Indescribable Imported Novelties. . ‘ancy Photo Frames, & Oc Fancy Paper Knive Mirrors, ail siz ° New Style Hand Mitrors. 9 «eeee Nortoxs Axo Toner Anricres, ~ boxes Assorted Hair Pins = 490 ‘Mull Caps. id Waitros vs. all sty <' India other sou > we Paras Rovan A. LISNER, Co-. 12th st. ard Pa ave. Continued abvec. “Operative” Dentistry. Here are a few reasons why we can gue operative, deutiatry otter and'cheaper than other dentists: €9-Two of our wen do nothing else but opera:iveworke tiling ande ing the teeth, Ge. They are “special iste” in this’ particular line of the PeWe have th latest and ve have the very an ery best cbiainabieinstrumentsand Baterfais in the world ‘We buy cur materials by the leet them cheaper and bet ter. 2-Onr instruments are carefull cleaned after every operation with SearWe ‘use a special tion fe “use a special prepara for'sensitive tecth which prevents all in $2-Onr dentists are not, “*novices™ xthey are “*professionals” of experi- waa other Binds of dentistry ork, Such as extractinsc. Trgek,, tach, as extracting. crown au ver filling. atina fling. Gold fillings Gold crowns. Very best set of tecthi: WS) Wess hace, 401 7m Sx. N.W. Baltimore office: 1 N. Charles st. my30 OHHHHHHHHHHHHHO SEND YOUR ORDERS BY MAIL FOR PURE KENWEBEC IGE. Independent Tou Comraxy, Wholesale HHHHHHHHH IHHHHHHHHHH REFRIGERATORS, WATER COOLERS, ICE CKEAM . wus paves, CE CKEAM FREEZERS, BAR REQUISITES, KITCHEN UTENSILS. LOW-PRICE CHINA, CROCKERY AND GLASS FOR SUMMER HOUSES, HOTELS AND STEAM. ATS. ‘Our stock of the above is complete. J. W. Borzzer & Sos. nyt 923 Pexsa. Ave. N.W. HIGHER CRITICISM. the prosecution. fail to see what use they can make of it in proof of the inerrancy of Holy Scriptare. This section gives n list of. the canonical books of Holy Scripture and prefaces the list with the statement, “Under the name of Holy Scripture. or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Uld and New Testamonts, which are these,” &c. This clearly is a comprehensive statement which simply amounts to this: that Genesis, Exodus, and so forth, are books of Holy Script= JUDGE CUTCHEOX. ure, thatis, “the Word of God written.” ‘Word of God written” is only an explanation of the term “Holy Scripture.” It may be that the prosecution have in mind some hidden sense of this passage which they have not yet brought out to the light of the day, but, with the best study that I'can give it, it amounts to nothing more than that Genesis is the written Word of God, Exodus is the written Word of God, that is, is Holy Scripture, &c., &e. I certainly hold /to this cordially. Genesis, Exodus and the entire list of writings given in this section of the Word of God, constituent parts of Holy Scripture. Ido not know why the prosecution cite this phrase unless they think that it is con- trary to my statement when I ‘The Bible, as a book, is paper, print and binding—nothing mote.” CONTAINS THE WORD OF Gop. It is evident, therefore, that the Westminster doctrine of Holy Scripture must be so con- structed as to enable us to say, ‘the Bible con- tains the Word of God.” as weil as to say, “is the Word.” There are two extremes of state- ment which are both inconsistent with the Westminster statement. If, on the one hand, you take the statement of the shorter catechism and say Holy Scripture contains the Word of God in its chief doctrines, but there are some doctrines of faith and rules of life which are not the Word of God, then you cannot sub- scribe to the statement, “‘is the Word of God.” I take no such position. So, on the other hand, if you take the statement of the larger cate- chism in such a sense as to say, Holy Scripture is the Word of God in all its parts, thoughts and words, sentences and linguistic expression, then you cannot subscribe to the statement, “contains the Word of God.” The true West- minster doctrine is the same that wo have already seen, that the Bible contains the Word of God in that it contains the rule of faith and Practice, and it is the Word of God because this Tule of faith and practice so fills and pervades and controls Holy Scripture ax to make it to all intents and purposes the Word of God. Asa Westminster divine well says: “For the Scripture stands not in cortice ver- borum, but in medulla sensus, it's the same wine in this vessel which was drawn out of that.” VERBAL INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY. Now I can sincerely subscribe to both state- ments, “is the Word of God” and “contains the Word of God,” but I challenge the subscrip- tion to the words “contains the Word of God” on the par? of those who insist that Word of means verbal inspiration and inerrancy in every particular. I challenge the subseription to the clause “contains th Word of God” by the prosecution when they sa, ‘God 1s the arranger of its clauses, chooser of its terms and the speller of its words. | so that the text mm its letters, words or clauses jn ‘ine as the though: > blind zeal with which some have recently ed upon “ia the Word of God” reminds us ence at Marburg. Schaff: “Luther first rose and declared emphatically that he would not change his opinion on the real presence in the least, but stand fast on it to the end of fi ed upon the Swiss to prove the absence of Christ, but protested To ure the words of Dr. phasis to his declaration he wrote w of chalk on the table in large | words of institution with which he was deter- mined to stand or fall: Hoc es! corpus Mewn.” A DIVIDED PROTESTANTISM. We well know the evil consequences of a divided and distracted Protestantism which ro- sulted from this intolerant and opinionated conduct of the great reformer. Shall we allow men who are pigmies wlongside of Luther to plunge our Presbyterian Church into distrac- tion and division by the entering edze of the copula “is?” In the usage of langtage this little word “is” is eapabie of w variety of inter- pretations. “This is my body.” in the words of Jesus, is of infinitely more consequence Scripture is the Word of God” in our confession of faith. Give heed to the warning of history. MOSES AND THE PENTATEUCH. “is the i the | of Lather s uncharitable conduct at the confer- | taught that Moses is not the author of the Pen- tateuch. He said that “the prosecution orig- inally proposed to prove that Dr. Briggs’ as- sertion ‘that Moses is not the author of tho Pentateuch’ was a fact which sustained the charge that be taught ‘doctrines which conflict irreconcilably with and are gontrary to the cardinal doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and contained in the standards of the Presby- terian Church, tha‘ the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible ru'e of faith and practice.’ This charge they have abandoned and propose to prove that the ‘teaching that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch’ is “contrary to direct statements of Holy Scripture and to the essential doctrines ot the standards of the Presbyterian Church. (1) ‘That the Holy Scriptures evidences itself’ to be ‘the word of God’ ‘by the consent of all the parts,’ and (2) ‘that the infallible rule of inte1 pretation of Scripture 1s the Scripture itself.’” CLAIMS MUST BE PROVED. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that a doctrine is an essential doctrine of the Westminster standards, They may PROF. BRIGGS—“WHAT AN ABSURD STATEMENT.” claim anything and everything. Itis necessary for them to prove their claim. The court have doubtless noticed that the prosecution have nfade no attempt in their argument to present such proof. They have made no use of these Passages of our confession whatever. On this account I ask that you rule charges IV and V outof court as entirely destitute of proof. But I shall find it convenient to use these pas- sages cf the confession myself and turn them against the prosecutors. I admit that two doc- trines of our standards are “that the Holy Seripture evidences itself to be the Word of God by the consent of all the parts” and “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” But Ideny that the clause “consent of all the parts” is an essential doc- trine. I am glad, however, that the question has been raised at this very point, because upon its solution will depend a question of con- science which is likely to emerge ere long for many Presbyterian ministers. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCES. The internal evidences given in section V, chapter I, to prove that Holy Scripture is the word of God are: heavenliness of the matter, efficacy of the doctrine, majesty of the style, of all the parts. the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to Ged), the full dis- covery it makes of the only way of man’s sal- vation, the many other incomparable excel- lences, apd the entire perfection thereof. If this court should still resist my arguments and hold that “consent of all the parts” is an essential article of our creed, then let me say that although I deny that it ix an essential doc- trite, I yet agree to the doctrine itself. But I fail to see in what respect the doctrine that Moses did not write the Pentateuch contra- venes the doctrine of the “consent of ail the parts” of Holy Scripture, or the doctrine that “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scrip- ture is the Scripture itself.” Iam sure that I hold these three doctrines. It may be that the prosecution can convince you that I am in- consistent in’ holding these doctrines. But they have not thus far ventured to make such an argument, and if they had done so they could not do away with the fact that I do hold these doctrines. THE CRAIGHEAD CASE. You will then have to apply the law of the Supreme Court in the Craighead case that— “No man can rightly be convicted of heresy by inference or implication; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those consequences which may legitimately flow from his assertions. Many men are grossly in- consistent with themselves; and while it 1 right, in argument, to overthrow false opinions, by tracing them in their connections and con- sequences, it is not right to charge any men with an opinion which he disavows.” (Craig- head case, minutes of the general assembi 1824, p. 122.) . You cannot convict me in the face of this decision of the general assembly. THE ARGUMENTS SUMMED UP, Let me sum up my arguments on the charges | IV and V. ‘There fs no lawful bridge by which these specifications, that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch and that Isaiah is not the author of half of the book that Lears his name,” can be brought under the charges. ‘Therefore there is no relevancy in the specitications—they cannot be accounted as valid. ‘The Westminster confession of faith no- where states that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that Isaiah wrote the whole of the book that bears his name. Therefore there can be no lawful case against me in the Presbyterian Chureh. ‘The testimony of Holy Scriptare in the pas- sages adduced docs not show that Moses wrote the Pentatouch or that Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name. ‘Therefore my statements are not in conflict with Holy Scripture and there is no valid case against me on the ground of Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture makes it evident that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name. Therefure my statements are true and the prosecution are*in conflict with the Holy Scripture. In the fear of God and in the light of the evidence you should’ decide. You cannot de- cide on the basis of your opinions and preju- dices without violating the laws of the church and the law of God.” Savetification After Death. Dr. Briggs then discussed the charge that he taught that sanctification is not complete at death, which doctrine the prosecution claimed is contrary to the essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the standards of the church. “This charge,” he said, “states (1) that it isan essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the standards ‘that the souls of believers are at | their death at once made perfect in holiness.’ But no proof is offered for this easontial doc- trine under the charge. We shall consider whether there is any proof for it whatever in Holy Scripture and the standards. The charge | states that Dr. Briggs teaches ‘that sanetifica~ tion is not complete at death.’ This I cept as a fairly good statement of my ‘The charge states that my doctrine is contrary to the essential doctrine of Holy Seripture and of the standards. This statement we shall have toconsider. But let me warn the coart again that they must confine themselves to. the que: tion at issue. They have no right to condemn me on account of any other doctrines taught | in the citations from my inaugural except the doctrine attributed to me in the charge, namel: ‘that sanctification is not complete at death. My doctrine is clearly stated in the following | words of the inaugural cited by the prosecu- | tion as part of their specification: here is no authority in the Scriptures or in the creeds of Christendom for the doctrine | of immediate sanctification at death, The only sanctification known to experi . to Chri tian orthodoxy and to the Bible is progressive sanctification. Progressive sanctification after | death is the doctrine of the Bible and the | church.” | THE DOCTRINE OF THE STANDARDS. that this | | Itis claimed by the adversaries [statement is against the Westminster stand- | ards, which teach “that the souls of believers | ¢ their death at once made perfect in hol ‘They cite from the confession, chapter (1,) from the larger catechism, ques- i'from the shorter chatechixm, ques- t Dr. Bireh in his argument made er of these passages from our nd Mr. MeCook used only one of | them, question 37 of the shorter catechism, in es a doctrine directly But that was a mere assertion without proof, proporal made to show that that doctrine is an essential | doctrine of the standards. Therefore I ask that | you decide in accordance with law and usage in | of justice and throw ont the charge which is so destitute of proof. But inasmuch ae I desire that you should know what is the precise relation of my doctrine to the West- | tninster standards, I shall consider these pas- it iy true that it ix taught in the shorter catechism that ‘the souls ot hievers are at r death made perfect in holiness; but it is | t said that at their th beiievers are imme- | ina moment of time, “at once’ by divine transformation, made perfect in holiness. i THE MIDDLE STATE. | Tean say at their death mado “perfect in | throughout the entire period. | ter believers at death enter the middle state, in which state they are_made perfect in holiness by progressive sanctification. ‘At their death” does not necesarily imply ‘tin the the very moment of the transition from life to death,” or in the exact second of time after the spirit has departed from the body, but “at their death” is in antithesis with “in this life,” and means nothing more than “in the state of death.” +Made necessarily imply ‘that the sanctification of the soul is instantaneously, in the moment of time after it leaves the body, perfected and com- pleted,” but is consistent with the belicf that the soul is made perfect in holiness in the state of death. ‘The larger catechism teaches that— “The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is in that their souls are then made perfect in holinees and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in ligt and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.’ NOT IMMEDIATELY PERFECT. Itis not said that their souls are made im- mediately perfect in holiness after death any more than it is said immediately received into the highest heavens. This question s of the communion in glory with Christ which the members of the invisible church enjoy immedi- ately after death, Is that communion limited to the moment of time at death? Does it not rather continue during the whole time in that state, beginning immediately after death? Im- mediately after denth fn this passage moans the whole state which begins immediately after death, during which the communion is enjoyed, ax we might infer also from the clause ‘waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.” What therefore is affirmed as happening immediately after death is affirmed as Dappening: during that state of communion and waiting which begins immediately after deatn, and not in the mo- ment ef time that begins that state. The four affirmations are not of successive chronological events, but of parallel events: (1) Made per- fect in holiness," (2).“*received into the hig! heavens,” (3) “bel 4d the face of God in light nd glory,” (4) “whiting for the full redemp- tion of their bodies;” all alike refer to the com- munion in glory with Christ, which continues throughout this entire state from death to the resurrection, The State of Holiness. * In accordance with this general statement of question 82, which we have thus analyzed, there follow separate questions as to each one of these states: (83) “What is the communion in glory ~rith Christ, which tho members of the invisible eburch enjoy in this life?” (86) “What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?” (90) “What shail be done to the righteous at the day of judgment?” ‘The “immediately after death” of the specific question has the same meaning as the “‘immedi- ately after death” of th» general question; and the meaning of the “immediately after death” of the answer must be the «ume, all therefore referring to the stato immediately after death, and not to the point of time at death. There- fore there is no proof that the clause “then made perfect in holiness” is to be limited tothe very moment of death, ‘The idea of an immediate sanctification has always been rejected by all denominations. ‘This chapter is one of the choicest productions of the Westminster divines. It sets forth truly and accurately the doctrine of Holy Scripture. If the Presbyterian Church had bound this 13th chapter on their heart instead of the 34 chapter, and kad made the scriptural doc- trine of sanctification their article of the stand- ing and falling church, rather than the schol: tic dogma of reprobation, what a glorious bis- tory they might have had in the last two centuries! THEN NO NEED OF REVISION. There would have been no need of the agonies of the present revision movement, It seems sometimes as if those who insist upon imme- diate sanctification at death were using the term sanctification in a different sense from that known to the Westminster standards. Sanctification is sometimes used in the Scrip tures and also in theological literature and de- bate; for that cleansing from sin which takes place in the laver of regeneration; and again for that induction into a higher Christian life which is eflected by the power of the Holy Spirit upon the souls of men at certain crises of their history. Ido not question that men are netified in th that they shed in | the laver of regeneration class frou: ovary eur. | bed GAR Delete ond Guid new @at bo weal | choose the company for time and eternity of the laver of regeneration clean from every cor- ruption, taint and defilement of sin. I do not doubt that the fountain which flows from the Redeemer’s side cleanseth from all sin in the hour of death as in ay hour of life, when the sinner opens his heart in faith and repentance to the saving love of Jesus. A CONTRADICTION INVOLVED. If, therefore, by any confusion of mind the Westminster divines have taught in chapter XXXIIand the corresponding questions and answers of the larger and shorter catechisms the doctrine of immediate ranctifi death they have thereby, through in ught a doctrine which is irrec: and contrary to and in conflict with their doc- trine of sanctification and their doctrine of the resurrection of the body and their doctrine of the day of jadgment. Can any doubt in such acase which passage must give way? Shall we give up three doctrines of greatest. impor! ance for the sake of one doctrine of lesser im- portance? Is the assembly ready to take the position that the dogma of immediate sanctification at | death is an essential doctrine of the Presbyte- rian Church, so that no man can become a Presbyterian minister who does not hold it? If fo, you stretch and strain the line of cardinal and essential doctrines to an extent that will be destructive of the peace and prosperity of the ehureh, CALVIN QUOTED. Prof. Briggs then went on to quote from Calvin in his opinion on sanctification, and from De Wette, who represents many commen- tators who thiuk that these perfected spirits are the martyrs of the old dispensation. Continuing, Dr. Briggs considered at length the idea understood im the phrase “perfect in holiness” as well as the doctrine of sanctifica- tion. Referring to a number of 8 of Scripture ho went on: Tnall theto passages the martsrs of tho martyr age of the church are conceived as the first fruits, or the first born, or partakers of the first resurrection. They have been faithfuland true in their testimony even unto death, they have kept themselves undefiled and without blemish from contact with idolatry, they are virgins as the bride of the Messiah and have not committed fornication with heathen gods, they are clad in the white robesof the prieats of God, they live and reign with Christ in the heavenly ion throughout - the complete period of His iintorial reign, they share the Redeemer’s lessedness and glory. THE SLEEP OF PIOUS SOULS. There have been those who taught the sleep of pious souls. Dr. Birch seems to hold that opinion, for he said in his argument: ‘All dead Christians are asleep. [{Laughter.] When we are asleep we show the rest which consists in the inaction of mind and body.” Others have held that departed spirits pass a dreamlike ex- istence, with powers of memory of the life in this world, and of anticipation of the resurrec- tion of the body and the judgment vest of God; but without real activity or change of con ion But these opin- | ions have always becn rejected by the orthodox. Dr. Briggs then went on to argue, from what he had adduced, that the prosecution had failed to prove their case, and that it must fall. He claimed to have shown that all matters of i portance had been discussed before the presby- of New York, and he protested against the action of the prosecution 1 i before the assembly as the; , As to the now matter brought in-by Dr. Lampe, he said it would take at least an hour to answer it, and this he would not do, as he was certain they had already made up their minds upon it, and he was willing to leave it to the | Rood sense of the house. THE CHANGE OF PRESUDICE. As to the charge of prejudice used in the conduet of the case before the presbytery Prof. Briggs entered a protest against any such charge being made against such learned menand Christian scholars as those members of the New York presbytery whoso remarks were cited in support of this charge. Ifsach men as these could uot be unprejudiced where on earth could one obtain unbiased men? But even if they were prejudiced in 1891 there was nothing to show that they were prejudiced in 1892. Why might it not be supposed that they had ac- cepted meckly the rebuke of tho assembly at Portland in sending back the case to the pres bytery? It ‘there was prejudice on one side of the case, Dr. Briggs continued, there was as much reason to suppose there was prejudice on. the other. He might have challenged as members of the court in the presbytery all such men as had voted against him in Detroit on the matter of his transter to the Robinson chair of biblieal theology in Union Seminary. On every. oc: sion the defendant had had to defend himself before tribunals that were manifestly opposed to him. Mattersare done better than this in civii eases and before civil courts in the way of providing a defendant with a fair and impartial trial. ‘The time might yet come when ‘in an ecelesinstical court a man might by means of Dr. Briggs then took up the charge that he ' holiness,” because I believe that the souls of | chullenge exclude such meu as are tuauitestly fect in holiness” doos_not | Preindiced against him, but as things are now . Briggs said he considered the tribunal be- fore which he was now speaking was as fair 9 body as any before which he had yet appeared, ‘THE CHARGES CRITICALLY EXAMINED. Dr. Briggs then discussed at some length the criticisms against the final judgment of the New York presbytery. Most of these criticisms he left to the members of the presbytery to answer, but others he treated himself. Inci- dentally he advised the assembly to give clear and careful attention to their decision in this case, for if in their verdict they approved the charges brought against him he would under- take to bring forward an immense amount of heresy that had been asserted in the charges and arguments against him. ‘The prosecution, he considered, had no right of appeal in this case, for if there was an ag- grieved party it was the defendant and not the members of the prosecuting committee. The appellants have no case, he said; the grounds of their appeal are trivial and im many cases childish. ‘The appellants might be disappointed at not securing a verdict of conviction against the defendant. but just the same aly case against Dr. Briggs an e faded away before the touch of the defendant like fog before the summer sun. He argued that it was wrong to convict men of eminence in the church on the charge of prejudice without giving them a hearing. It was equally wrong to charge prejudice against those members of the New York presbytery who had voted for him without, at the same time, charging prejudice against the men who had voted to convict him. rich Dr. Briggs said that having di charges of entertaining heretical would now go on to show briefly just what he did believe in the premises, quoting largely from his defense before the New York presby- tery and his own writings. a brief recess was taken at this point to rest the audience, and Dr. Craig rotired from the chair and Dr. Young p: After the recess Dr. Briggs went on to of the position of the prosecution in ing the Bible « divine authority instead of God speaking through the Hible, as he believed. EVIDENCE FROM THE CONFESSION. He then requested Dr. Brown to read from the printed copy of his defense before the New York presbytery what be had then said on the point of the reason as a fountain of divine au- thority. He claimed that the confession dis- tinetly recognized the reason asa great foun- tain of divine authority. Dr. Briggs then spoke earnestly extempore, saying that they would find that his views were on the line of a higher Christian life. He then discassed the case of Martingau as quoted in his inaugural, and asserted that he did not say that Martineau rejected the way of salvation re- vealed in the Bible, but. he did say that Marti- neau could not find certainty of divine au- thority in the church or the Bible. He might be mistaken in this, but if he errs at all it is on the side of Christian love. The prosecution trenebes on Christian love if they deny that Martineau found God enthroned in his own soul. Dr. Briggs asserted that the ition had not confined themselves to the opinions he had advanced, but had wandered over the wide field of theology. He trusted that the as- sembly would not commit themselves to such erratic guides. He quoted from Dr, Lampe’s address in which he said that he had no knowledge of God except through the Bible. He characterized this statement as the raukest heresy. Christ, he said. came to us through the sacrament. Oftentimes it was more potent than the Bible in giving divine certainty. He apy to the religious experience of the church in the com- munion hour. . THE CASE OF SPURGEON. Dr. Briggs then spoke of his reference to Spurgeon and asserted that the prose- eution harp upon it in their argument to excite prejudice against him. He sald that what he said about Spurgeon may not be Pleasing to thecourt. “Dut is it not strictly true? He said that he did not assign a lower place than Newman or Martineau, but he did say that the average opinion’ of the Christian world would not assign him a higher Place in the kingdom «f God thaa Martineau or Newman. Sup that be made a mistake. Is such a mistake heresy? Where do the prosecution find author- ity in the Scriptures for exalting purgeon above Martineau and Newman. He Martineau and Newman rather than of such loveless persons as would cast them out of the congregation of the faithful. He protested against the introduction of such conerete examples in the charges. He had used the names merely to. explain and prove what he had said, It was his views, and not his illustrations, that were on trial. Dr. Briggs took exception to the statement that faith was founded entirely on the Bible. His faith was based on Christ and he had been brought to Christ through the Bible. The hour for recess having arrived Dr. Briggs suspended his argument, stating that be expected to conelude shortly. IN HONOR OF DECORATION DAY. Rev. Dr. Graham presented a motion that when the assembly adjourn it be to meet again at 7:45 p.m., omitting an afternoon session out of respect for the nation’s dead,in whose honor this day was celebrated. It was remarked that this would need a re- consideration of previous action, inasmuch as the program for a session had all been provided for. At this ment un! int Judge Wills moved an adjourn- 2:30, and the motion was carried. peaeai aera THE CASE OF DR. BRIGGS. Some Press Opinions Upon the Action of the General Assembly, From the New York Herald. 18 DR. BRIGGS DOOMED? What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me.—Genesis, iii., 13, The action of the general assembly in the Briggs case is, so far as our memory serves us, entirely unique. It is also a very significant sign of the times, and as such is worth careful consideration. ‘The peculiarity of this incident is that Dr. Briggs has been once acquitted of heresy, and his prosecutors, not satisfied with the verdict, have appealed tothe general assembly for a new trial, In the secular courts such a procedure would not, of course, be tolerated. If the accused is convicted and his counsel believes he can es- tablish his client's innocence, it is perfectly competent for him to carry the case toa higher court, That privilege is one of the safeguards of justice, the purpose of the law being tu give the prisoner every reasonable opportunity to free himself from the charge. it if the accused faces the jury and is pronounced not guilty that ends the matter. Notso it seems in this ecclesiastical court. The acquittal of Dr. counts for nothing, and the prosecuting officers, determined to jim guilty if possible, appealed to the general assembly for another chance to cure conviction, In this matter, Iv enough, they are sustained by a vote of 409 to 144, That is one reason why the action taken at Washington seems to be umque. ‘The charge against Dr. Briggs when reduced to the last analysis is simply this—That he be- heves in applying the highestcriticism—in other words the test of the most critical scholarshy —to the Bible, and stoutly declares that Book can triumphantly endure it, Hehas faith in the foundations of the record and openly challenges all contestants. Candidly admitting that it is not inerrant in every detail ot historic statement. he insists that it ie the gift of God and contains the plan of salvation, His opponents, however, practically deny the right of a true Presbyterian to cply” his scholarship to the original text, deman he accept the Book on the authority of the fathers and that he find in it no more and no Jess than John Calvin found there three hun- dred years ago. If Dr. Briggs thinks it well to make ew discoveries he is put on trial in New York, and if weakly acquitted there he must be sey if possible, convicted. a john Calvin wouid certainty approve of th vote taken on Friday, aad ttt rmnitted to re- visit the pale glimpses of the moon will be present at the trial with valuable suggestions for the prosecution, To the great and wicked world at large, which the Presbyterians hope to save, this coms more like persecution than prosecution. There is an element of unfairness in the evi- dent animus against Dr. Briggs that does not commend itself to the unregenerate heart. Depraved as the general run of men are sup- posed to be, ther wouldn't think it quite the square thing to retry an acquitted man. ‘They never do it.” It is reserved for the members of 4 Christian denomination to do that, and it is a very interesting fact. It is quite right for the chirch to purge itself of the hypocrites and falsifiers who have crept into its membership. but not entirely safe in this 19th century to evict a member because he happens to be a profound scholar and differs with his brethren in the interpre- tation of certain passages of Holy Writ, ‘This great and noble ecclesiastical organiza- tion, so 1 d, isin danger of a split. Outs:de barbariaus look om the proceedings of last week, and what is reported causes them no surprise. Dr. Parkhurst Gives a Hint. From the N. ¥. World. Rev. Charles H. Parkhurst preached yester- day morning at the Madison Square Presby- ‘erian Church on “The Prodigal Son.” He touched upon the Dr. Briggs case as follows: “It is a common thing to say we pin our faith tocertain doctrines. If the doctrine should give way then the foundation would fall. All the doctrines of the church have not proven infallible. At one time science and religion contended that the earth was the center of the universe. To question that doctrine was to disbelieve religion. The church staked its vahdity upon that doctrine. The church bas | always made it a point to stake its existence Upon specific point, . “The vigor of our religious life will ever be determined by the capacity of our roots, and not by the pins that our religious growth is looped up by. ‘The more we loop ourselves up regardless of the strength of our roots, which should be the real foundation of our religious existence, the worse off we will be if the twine which loops us up should prove bad. “It ia dangerous thing for any man or set of men fo declare that the abandonment of any specific opinion would necessarily draw after it the overthrow of It we Preachers did not say so much we would not nye 80 much to take back. “There is a tendency tu believe in doctrines. “Thave seen a considerable eleeent of it in our church and in quite a number of our own particular congregations, and it is be- cause I understand perfectly well that condi- tion and appreciate so thoroughly the by which it has been induced that I speak as I do. It seems to be so fall of menace. It is rang te throw too much attention upon doc- final trellis. The roots are the main things lan's redemption rests primarily upon his be- liot im God. Tet us asa church and as indy. viduals say wit son: ‘I am going back to the Father.’ ” Dr. Briggs on Trial. From the Chicago Evening Post. By what must be considered a significant vote—409 to 145—the Presbyterian general as- sembly decided yesterday to put Dr. Briggs on trial for heresy. It seems a foregone conclu- sion in the minds of the Washington cor- respondents that he will be convicted. The re- ult of the conviction is not to be foretold. Whether it will restore peace to a powerful church now shaking with the controversy or only serve to so inerease the bitterness of the factions as to divide the church permanently is sooce can oven the wisest of tho pestensoes oun ict. There can be no question, though. on this point that the fight on Briggs has developed ions that are commonly kept in abeyance y preachers of the gospel. When we find two sets of men denouncing each other as ** cutors’” or “infidels,” when wo read ae ments as the brilliant young Chicago \ Thomas C. Hall. gave out yesterday when he cailed a venerable doctor “poor, stupid old Dr. Birch” and accused another officer of the as- sembly of such prejudice as no fair-minded man would expose—when we sce these things we can well sympathize with the men and | women all over America who in sorrow and | weariness of spirit are watching the doings in Washington. The Presbyterian church of America is, indeed, sorely tried. The Bricgs Case. From the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. The real purpose of the proceedings in the case of Prof. Briggn, as aptly stated by Col. McCook, is to enforce « contract, or to deter- mine whether the contract has been main- tained in all its integrity. This point has been evaded and ignored on side of the controversy from the stat. The cuuntry bas listened to the defenders of the distinguished clergyman only to be told that he was being ted like a erimi- nal, when, in f: ere is no justification for such a view. He is in the service of the Presbyterian Church, emploved to do cer- tain thing, in a certain way, and it is con- tended that he has not lived ‘up to tho terms and conditions of the contract. When he assumed the position he agreed to teach the doctrines of the organization that gave done so, but has taken the hiberty to substi- tute his own 8 for given features of the schedule about his right to remain in the service of a church after he has renounced his allegiance to it in certain particulars, and assumed the privilege of departing from its system of faith and forms of instruction at his own discretion. Thatas the vital issue in the case, and all otber considerations are purely technical and artificial. Itis not necessary to discuss the meriteof Prof. Briggs’ form of theology so far as the pending trial is concerned. Granting that his Views are sound and wholesome, the fact re- mains that he is not authorized to teach them as a tative of the Presbyterian Church if they antagonize the doctrines of that church He is free to elsewhere and identify himself some other religious body, or preach the gos- pel as he understands it in an independ- ent way, but he is surely not free to. «tay where he has ceased to be a full believer, and where he caunot consistently and con- scientionsly perform the work required of him by his contract. ‘The matter is a very simple one when looked at in this light. It does not involve the idea of persecution, but only that of justice and ty. ‘Prof. stands in the attitude of trying to compel the church to accept doc- trines and in tions of Scripture that are contrary to its established creed, aud toretain him in its service notwithstanding his violation of the conditions upon which that service logically depends. It is under- stood that he does not claim to be in accord with the prevailing Presbyterian faith and sentiment; and that is equivalent to an admission that he belongs somewhere else, or, at least, that he is occupying a false Eyterian peincinles and opinions tke peopl vterian have respect for any man who severs relations with a religious denomination cause he cannot honestly continue to en- tertain and advocate its doctrines; but when © man asserts the right Yo be » law unto himself in such a case, and yet to maintain those relations, he invites distrust of his motives and forfeits much of the sym- pathy that he would otherwise receive, ——_+e+—____ IT WAS A PICNIC. ‘That ig What Thousands of Pleasure Seck- ers Make of The Day. was a feast for the excursion trade. ‘The pros- pects for foul weather did not and this happy disappointment lent increased zest to the The river front never looked more gorgous. Everybody who had a flag unfurled it, and everybody who aid not have one borrowed ons, All the shippit with bunting. be} of “Get your tickets for “All aboard for River View!” Mount Vernon steamer!” that | gers, capt was jingle of ‘summer and the Mount Vernon electric road is doing its hare of transportation. THE BAILRO! ‘The railroads have a similar story to tell. The regular passenger trains have been crowded with fun hunters eager to escape from cit; life. Two specials with Knights of Pythias the B, and 0. station today. One was bound for Penmar and the other to Gettysburg. The people of the Pennsylvania road tell ‘"Pothceds Fask ishaving is share of patrons te and of shekels, aan Marriage Licenses. Marriage licenses have been issued by the clerk of the court to the following: George F. Ports and Hattie M. Sayre; Beneditto Cavallo and Bernardina Candioto; James A. Carter and Mary E. Robey; Alex. B. Rowe and Fannie M. Robinson; George 8. Eaton and Grace L. Rich- ards; Fred Hess and Lena Hornbach. —_—_— For steady nerves and good sleep use Bromo-Seltzer. Ceutaius uo AutkPyrine. MR. BUSH SPEAKS. He Writes a Sharp Let Regard to Rep- Fesentative Baker's Charges. To the Eititor of The Evening Star ‘My attention being directed to the pubdliched Correspondence appearing in yesterday's issue of Tue Stax between the Hon. Henry M. Baker and Col. Win. G. Moore, superintendent of the pohie, relative to the occupation and use of premises No. 924 9th street northwest, I deem it my duty as a law-abiding citizen to cor- Tect fome misstatements contained in the afore- said Baker's letter to the end that the public may form some idea of how the statesman from the “granite etate” handles facts when not en- | Saged in shaping necded legislation pro bono As the rory threshold of his letter. he reck- ly perverts the truth in asserti “Henry Bush has been selling weg hy, od drank on the premises,” &c., &e. Now, the fact is that I have nothing whatsoever todo with the alleged violation of Inw in the partieu- lar charged, as Iam not the licensee, but the lessee (representing as general manager the Banner Brewing Company of Cincinnati, Ohio), of the ises in question, which were leased by me Pitney & Bradford, agents for Mr. Baker, not for the purpose of ‘occupying and using the ises as wtated by him, but to sub- Jet in the interest of the Banner Brewing Com- pany, just as home brewers in this city would — yoy Fd sublet them to establish ranches in different parts of the for the ale of their rexpective been I venture to say, without fear of contradio- tion, that the rable gentleman bus not stat ingle fect,in his remarkable communi- cation, except that I have taken an appeal from, the judgment for poenession of the premises, “Hence these tears.” Why I should be at- tacked in this manner and the “Bash liquor case,” now awaiti i hi . ag decision by the Court of Ap; Rl ppeals, brought into this time, Icannot comprehend and have but one theory on which to! necount for misstatements of so many facts, which may Prove interesting to some theory is this: 1 Las in his congressional district many voters who are strongly in favor of prokibition and _L Supper! ts required to elect, and to be uilty of such a ctime (?)as to lease promises for the sale of liquor to be “drink on the Premises” might militate against the chances of # re-election of the aforesaid statesman, if such news found its way into the old granite state. In a word, considerable fuss was created among certain voters in the representative's district at the last election on account of leas ing the premises in question, and in order to show that the agents (Pituey’ & Bradford) bad been deceived (7) by me, «uch netion as now teken by Mr. Baker was absolutely necessary to make himself politically solid proki- bition comstituenta. Nt With lle “Consistency, thon art a jewel!” In conclusion, I beg to suggest that if the Hon. Henry M. Baker would pay more attention to the enactment of better laws goverping the liquor trafic for this District as at present feems to exist instead of misrepresenting facts to the possible injury of his fellow man—in order to serve his own ends he would have saved himself the deserved criticism he has ro- ceived at the hands of the genial and effcient superintendent of the police—for his (I's) un- warranted attack on the supposed Jack of Proper police watehfuincss and failure in charg- ing me with violating law at No. 924 9th street northwest, with which I have no connection whatsoever except to draw the rents from the ecenpant thereoi, who isa licensee, and, #0 far as I kuow, an observer of low in every re spect. Hexey Boon, 421 10th street, —_-=——_ ‘Thompson Now Pree. In fhe case of Harry Thomson, the young man charged in the Police Court some time ago with a felorfious assault on Jessie Langley, who has since died, as heretofore published in ‘Tue Stan, Asistant District Attorney Mul- lowney yesterday entered a nolle pros. An inquest was held over the b of the girl as published at the time, and Thompson was ex- onerated as heretofore pul a. MAKRIED, FATON—RICHARDS. On Tuesday morn’ {he parsonaee of Bt, DIED. BROOKE. On Mentay, Nay 2, 180% at ore; LOE Bt DURE in ite war tfourp ress brother nm D. and the late Kdwond i aud Thome: A. Beutke of this city, oT [icekvilie, Ma., papers please cops.) . CHOWN. “On kunday. May 20 2 ey ANITA B.CNOWS, olde-t Uauztter at Witton and ¥mma G. Crown, ceed thirtes yea s aud four months Funeral from nerents? t, Wednesday are respectfully invited to attend Lalthinore papers please cops. DOWSING. invitet to attend. GIESEKING. On Mar 20 189%,at 1) o'vlock a.m., Dr, HENRY N. GIPSERING, in The forty-atae pear is a Funeral takes place from his Inte Te street nortawert. on Thursday, Sune tt std ree oe GRACE. On Monday, May 29, 150) CHAS, C, onlv son of Chas. ‘arent. Thearetas, June Lat 2 p.m. Relatives and friends invited 1 attend. BS GREEN. Op Mon ay. May 20,18, HOWARD Mt, eniy chiid of Dr. A'M. ‘and the late Orie Le Great shed eich sears and twenty-thrve dayne ember fy ee i of a thot. 420 Softer, jreet, Anacostia, Tucsday, 0th instant, at Otdock pains Sariclly private, * JONES. On Mey 20. IAM at Op. mm. STRIE M.. beloved dauchter of Levi and Mary "NC Sonoe Aecd'twaive yearn. two. Inc Funeral from parents’ rea street southwest. at p.tm. Thureday, 3 ey Telatives iy tue = VAILER. DANIEL E. VATLER. the beloved son of Mew Martha Johnson, deraried sus ive toe fou ot 4 “m., ase tweniy nine Seana, fOUE monies, fvedayn. ne Funeral from bis Inte residence. Rorthwest, Meridian Hill, at Friends are invited. HOSKINS. May 27, 18M, at 7 ovlock p.m, ISAIAH HO-KINS, aged fifty vrars, beloved busband Mary Hosking." at bis texiars dan street and Sherman aveute, Dic charee of Lincotn Post, Friends andrectivescoraighiy = cand rcictivsseoraighty “pool — 28, 1803, STEPHEN SMITH, ‘Charlotte "and £41 Mary c, ‘Smath. SMITH. On M: beloved bushand Creve —to nat wnicn ts pure, Creve—to that which ts ure, Crxve—to that watch stands the test, Crzve-to mat, noth pure and best. HEAD= 10c, DRUGGISTS. my d04t OST—-ON 11TH OR F ST N.W. THIS Mon! @2reward if returns Distant se St een Canprex Cer FOR PITCHER’S CasTosia. 2028