WnfflioiM' IffiS 
 
 itHffi plyljli;!.'!;:!.'!!;::'!:. 
 
 Ite 
 
 ■EllliHHigHpnHMM 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/presbyterianchur00pres_67 
 
PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 » 
 
 The Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE PROCEEDINGS. 
 
PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 The Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D. 
 
 Extracts from the Proceedings, of 
 November 28th, 1S92. 
 
 / 
 
 D r. lampes reply to objections 
 
 FILED BY Professor BRIGGS UNDER 
 SECTION 22 OF THE BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 
 
PRESS OF 
 DOUGLAS TAYLOR 
 8 WARREN ST. 
 N. Y. 
 
Professor Briggs having filed objections to the amended 
 charges and specifications as provided by Section 22 of the Book 
 of Discipline, Dr. Lampe replied as follows: 
 
 Mr. Moderator and Brethren: Dr. Briggs has made some 
 severe reflections on the personnel of the Prosecuting Committee, 
 for which we do not care, but he has not demonstrated the in¬ 
 validity of the amended charges and specifications. 
 
 At the point which we have now reached in this judicial case, 
 there are two questions to be considered by this Court, and only 
 two, namely: 1, Are the charges and specifications as amended 
 by the Prosecuting Committee now sufficient in form and legal 
 effect? And 2, Has the general nature of the original charges 
 and specifications been adhered to in the amended form? That 
 these should both be answered in the affirmative will be evi¬ 
 dent, I think, from the following considerations: 
 
 1. The amended charges and specifications are in strict con¬ 
 formity to the requirements of the Book of Discipline. Dr. 
 Briggs insisted on their insufficiency as to form and legal effect 
 unless they were drawn in that form. 
 
 When he presented his objections to the sufficiency to the 
 form and legal effect of the original charges and specifications 
 last year, the Prosecuting Committee recognized the fact that 
 some of the objections, though purely technical, were well taken; 
 but felt that the only offer of amendment to be made by them, 
 until after the Presbytery had determined upon the validity of 
 the objections, could be in form of suggestion respecting a 
 method of amendment. 
 
 But a more deliberate examination of the Book of Discipline 
 showed that the Committee may ask < the^Presbytery to determine 
 formally and without discussion of t the merits of 4i the. case, 
 whether or not the objections are valid, in order that amend¬ 
 ments affecting the form and legal effect' may be made if con¬ 
 sidered necessary. 
 
 Accordingly, at the last session of this Court,,-permission was 
 asked to present the charges and specifications in ^amended 
 form; which request was granted, with the concurrence of the 
 
4 
 
 defense, after the necessary pro forma vote, in favor of sustain¬ 
 ing Dr. Briggs’ objections to the form and legal effect of the 
 charges and specifications previously presented, had been 
 passed. 
 
 When the question of amendment was considered, there 
 appeared to be need only of a few petty changes in form, such 
 as the transference of a single paragraph from the first charge 
 to each specification, and the subdivision of the second charge; 
 since the objection, that the specifications were not relevant to 
 the charge, was a matter to be decided after the questions 
 involved in the charges and specifications had been argued. 
 
 But maturer consideration led to the conclusion that, being 
 not a personal but an official prosecutor, the Committee is in 
 duty bound to do everything it can to hasten the trial, to avoid 
 technical issues, to cast aside all questions of personal prefer¬ 
 ence, and, therefore, to concede all changes possible which 
 would not involve a change in the general nature of the charges 
 and specifications. For these reasons the Committee determined 
 to recast the whole series so as to avoid all the objections of Dr. 
 Briggs, which, as he stated at the time, and as he has stated 
 more than once since, were offered in all sincerity, only in the 
 the interest of orderly procedure, and in no wise with intent to 
 secure delay. In this work of recasting the old charges and 
 specifications, the Committee has followed strictly the directions 
 of sections 15 and 16 of the Book of Discipline, in regard to the 
 form of charges and specifications, and we therefore state, 
 with the utmost confidence of your concurrence, that in their 
 amended form they are entirely correct and sufficient. This 
 will become still more apparent in the consideration of the other 
 question which you have to decide at this stage of the proceed¬ 
 ings. 
 
 2. I will endeavor to make it clear that the general nature 
 has not been departed from. In the attempt to amend, the ques¬ 
 tion necessarily arose in the Committee. What are we to under¬ 
 stand by the term “ Ge?ieral Nature ” of the charges and specifi¬ 
 cations, as used in the 22d section of the Book of Discipline? 
 That must be the sense also in which it is used in the mandate 
 of the General Assembly to the Presbytery in this case. 
 
5 
 
 On the answer to this question would depend the Committee s 
 right to accept the objections of Dr. Briggs as suggestions, and 
 so to recast the document as to relieve him from the burden of 
 further objecting in the interest of orderly procedure. 
 
 The language of Section 22 of the Book of Discipline, which 
 is: “ Permit, in the furtherance of justice, amendments to the 
 specifications or charges, not changing the general nature of the 
 same,’’can signify only that the term “general nature’ has 
 reference to the inherent nature, to the general intent and signi¬ 
 fication of the charges and specifications, and not in anywise to 
 their sufficiency in form and legal effect. That this is the cor¬ 
 rect interpretation of the term must be evident from the fact 
 that the Book in this same section authorizes the judicatory to 
 allow amendments after objections to the sufficiency in form and 
 legal effect have been sustained as valid. 
 
 This is clearly the only construction to be put upon the 
 language of the Book; and, on the basis of it, the Committee 
 might have exercised a wider liberty than it has actually taken. 
 For evidently the term “general nature” has been put in the 
 Book advisedly as against particular or specific nature, in order 
 that a prosecutor called upon to amend specifications or charges 
 might not be unduly restricted in that work. And, since the 
 general nature of the indictment against Dr. Briggs is that of 
 advancing heretical opinions, it might be justly claimed, as some 
 do, that any amendments within that general scope would be in 
 accord with the rule. But, since that might give rise to pro¬ 
 tracted controversy, the Committee did not desire to avail itself 
 of any such liberty. The amended charges and specifications 
 contain precisely the same matter which was presented in the 
 original one; nothing more and nothing less. It is all there: 
 Source of Divine authority, inspiration, genuineness, prophecy 
 and redemption after death. The only difference is in their form 
 as altered to meet the objections of Dr. Briggs and the require¬ 
 ments of the Book. 
 
 The Committee, recognizing the earnest desire of all to have 
 the matter brought to a final issue as speedily as is consistent 
 with the proper consideration of the matters involved, proceeded 
 simply to recast the old charges and specifications in such a way 
 
as formally to harmonize with the Book and meet Dr. Briggs’ 
 objections, important and unimportant alike. 
 
 The charge of fickleness is entirely uncalled for. We have 
 simply tried to obviate the objections of Dr. Briggs as to form 
 and legal effect. 
 
 In this recasting, the old specifications are in large part denom¬ 
 inated charges, receiving thereby their proper name; for they 
 assert that certain teachings or declarations are contrary to the 
 Word of God and the Standards of the Church. They also 
 give the quotations and thus allege an offense in the sense of the 
 3d and 4th sections of the Book of Discipline. In the amended 
 copy they are named charges and specifications. 
 
 In some instances, where the original specifications covered 
 the same ground, they have been combined for the sake of con¬ 
 ciseness. The particular doctrine alleged to be attacked or 
 opposed is given specifically in the charge instead of broadly, 
 so before in terms of Scripture and the Standards; and, wher¬ 
 ever possible, the paraphrases have been omitted and the actual 
 language of the accused has been substituted therefor. 
 
 It is not always possible to use exactly the language of the 
 author in preparing the charges, and a summary statement must 
 therefore be given. This may appear to be inferential in form, 
 but the court must determine, after trial, whether any other 
 interpretation can be put on the language quoted. This ques¬ 
 tion cannot be settled as a matter of preliminary objection. At 
 the same time it is fully conceded that it is but just and honest 
 to use the author’s own words, when the statement is brief 
 enough to admit of a separation from its context without doing 
 violence to the meaning. 
 
 The comparison in detail need not be extended, since every 
 member of this court has had the original and the amended 
 charges in his hands, and has thus had full opportunity to ascer¬ 
 tain the character and extent of the alterations made. A few 
 explanations may, however, be helpful toward enabling the 
 members of the court clearly to see that all the requirements 
 have been made within the limit of the general nature. 
 
 Specifications one, two, three and four of the first original 
 charge were declared by Dr. Briggs to be irrelevant to that 
 
7 
 
 charge. We considered ourselves competent to prove them to 
 be relevant. But it is true that they are in the form of distinct 
 charges, though not so entitled. And, since they all cover the 
 same general ground of the source of Divine authority, we have 
 combined them into one charge, which, however, has been 
 divided into Charges I. and II. to obviate the possible objection 
 that more than one offense is alleged. There are not two, but 
 one charge only in each of them, viz. : that the “ Reason and 
 Church respectively savingly enlighten men.” 
 
 It will be seen that the combination as in the amended form, 
 will simplify the discussion and render the final decision less 
 cumbrous. 
 
 To Specification five under the first charge of the old copy, 
 Dr. Briggs made the double objections that it was in the form 
 of a charge, and that, in using the expression “makes state¬ 
 ments, it alleged more than one offense. In the amended 
 series, these objections are entirely obviated. In it the specifi¬ 
 cation appears as Charge III., which, instead of saying “makes 
 statements,” tells what the statements are, they being repeated 
 with their context in the appended specification. In regard to 
 Specification six under the first charge, Dr. Briggs said: “It is 
 irrelevant to the charge. If it be a valid offense it ought to have 
 been made the ground of a distinct charge.” It, therefore, 
 appears in the amended form as Charges V. and VI., in order 
 to avoid the possible objection of alleging two offenses. The 
 statement that the assertions are contrary to the Scripture and 
 to the Standards is inserted in the body of the charge specific¬ 
 ally, and is retained also in the specification as before. 
 
 The 7th and last specification of the first charge becomes 
 Charge IV. in the amended series. The charge is in Dr. Briggs’ 
 own words, and thus avoids his objection of “ invalid inferences 
 and statements.” As in the other cases, the specific doctrine 
 opposed is here also named in the body of the charge and given 
 again in the quotation as before. 
 
 On the 2d charge of the old form, Dr. Briggs passed the fol¬ 
 lowing strictures: “ It is indefinite and vague for the reason 
 
 that it does not define what precise doctrine it is, out of the 
 many different doctrines taught by theologians in this depart- 
 
8 
 
 ment of Eschatology, that is an offense.” It is true the charge 
 does appear somewhat broad and indefinite. The Committee 
 aimed to generalize in one charge the ideas of Dr. Briggs con¬ 
 cerning redemption after death, and so may have laid them¬ 
 selves open to the charge of having made a vague statement; 
 but they thought that the extended quotation from the Inaug¬ 
 ural Address, given in the specification under the charge, would 
 relieve it of all indefiniteness, and make clear exactly what was 
 meant by it. Had the Committee obtained the opportunity to 
 present their case, they would have made the meaning clear. 
 However, the matter contained in the 2d charge has now been 
 divided, and appears in the definite and specific statements of 
 the 7th and 8th charges of the amended form, in each of which 
 
 the doctrines opposed are also indicated. 
 
 The contention that in amending the 2d charge, in which “a 
 doctrine ” concerning “ the character, state and sanctification of 
 believers after death ” is made the ground of accusation, the 
 general nature has been changed, since the 7th charge of the 
 amended form has reference to the salvation in the next world 
 of those who die in sin, cannot be considered pertinent. 
 
 The broadness of the 2d charge, which made it so vague to 
 Dr. Briggs, fairly covers both the 7th and 8 th charges of the 
 new series, especially since the matter of both was in the 
 extended specification which was appended to the old charge. 
 It may have been infelicitously worded, but it conveys no false 
 nor misleading impression, for on the face of the statements, 
 Dr. Briggs, apparently, at least, teaches that many of Christ s 
 people do not repent nor do they become believers until after 
 they die, since their redemption is accomplished in the middle 
 state, and therefore their character and state after death must be 
 affected by the fact that they departed this life in their sins. Dr. 
 Briggs affirmed that “the process” and “the processes” of redemp¬ 
 tion are accomplished in the middle state, and that certainly 
 must mean that some people are saved there. The peculiarity 
 of his position is this, that he conveys the idea that many 
 of Christ’s people do not attain to the condition of believers 
 until after death in the middle state. It must have been under¬ 
 stood that the matter which is now specifically presented in the 
 
9 
 
 7th charge was contained in the 2d charge of the old form, for 
 in the debate on the motion to dismiss the case, Dr. Shedd used 
 this language: “Dr. Briggs has said that he does not believe 
 in the doctrine of purgatory, but he has not said that he does 
 not believe that part of the human family are redeemed in the 
 middle state; that stands. ” 
 
 And if now we are to understand that the general nature of 
 the old charge limits us to the specific matter which now 
 is lodged in the 8th charge of the amended form, viz. : the pro¬ 
 gressive santification of the believer after death, then that charge 
 was not vague and indefinite, as has been alleged, and no mean¬ 
 ing can be attributed to the other two terms which are used 
 therein. 
 
 But even if the matter, which is now definitely formulated 
 in the 7th charge of the new form, was not in the 2d charge of 
 the old, even granting that it was not, still the introduction of 
 it into the amended series, does not change the general nature 
 or intent of the old, for that dealt with the subject of redemption 
 after death, to which also the new case brings itself. The con¬ 
 tention, that in amending, the Committee has violated the rule 
 on this point, has no force in it except by insisting that we must 
 not go beyond the limit of the specific nature in the amended 
 form, and hardly even then. 
 
 Furthermore, the plea that the general nature has been changed 
 for the reason that in some instances the doctrine alleged to have 
 been attacked has been changed, cannot be seriously considered. 
 The doctrines contradicted were only given broadly under all the 
 specifications. And that was sufficient, as we shall see. The new 
 one specified in the 5th and 6th charges of the amended form, for 
 instance, was quoted at least four times under the first charge 
 and was therefore in evidence. Moreover, the doctrine contra¬ 
 dicted forms no part of the charge, and, therefore, its change or 
 omission cannot in any wise change the nature of the charge. 
 According to the Book of Discipline, Sect. 15, a charge is com¬ 
 plete when it sets forth the alleged offense. The Assembly of 
 i82 4 gives the opinion that the doctrine which is opposed should 
 be indicated, but says that the reference may be either to the 
 Holy Scripture directly or to the Confession of Faith. Either 
 
10 
 
 is sufficient, but the preference is given to the Holy Scripture. 
 According to the Book of Discipline, Section 3, “An offense is 
 anything in the doctrine, principles or practice of a church 
 officer which is contrary to the Word of God.” And since the 
 Scripture references under these charges are the same, only leoS 
 in number, the general nature cannot be regarded as changed 
 merely for the reason that we have exchanged one section from 
 the 1st chapter of the Confession for another, since the Scrip¬ 
 ture reference alone is sufficient to indicate the doctrine contra¬ 
 dicted. The same argument precisely applies to the transfor¬ 
 mation of the seventh specification of the old series into the 
 fourth charge of the new. The general nature has not been 
 changed by the mere substitution of sections one and two of 
 the 2d Chapter of the Confession for the fifth section of the first, 
 for if these two sections were withdrawn, the fourth section of 
 the 1st Chapter of the Confession, and the fourth question and 
 answer of the Shorter Catechism contain all the attributes of 
 God indicated in the amended charge, and they are found in 
 the old form. The Scripture texts are also there, and they alone 
 would have been sufficient. 
 
 Nor does this charge allege two offenses. It treats of the one 
 offense of the denial of the fulfillment of many biblical predic¬ 
 tions. The offense would be precisely the same if the doctrines 
 given from the Confession as opposed in the 4th, 5th, and 6th 
 charges, were removed, since the Standards do not require them 
 to be put in the charge, and it would be competent for the Com¬ 
 mittee to show from the Scripture and Standards broadly given, 
 the validity and gravity of it. 
 
 It is seen, therefore, that the amended charges and specifica¬ 
 tions are correct and sufficient in form and legal effect accord¬ 
 ing to sections 15 and 16 of the Book of Discipline, in that each 
 charge sets forth the alleged offense, and but one offense, and 
 the specifications set forth the facts relied upon to sustain the 
 charges, and declare also the time, place and circumstances. 
 The specifications are relevant, for the reason that they conform 
 to the requirements of the Book of Discipline in setting forth the 
 facts relied upon to sustain the charges. If anything more than 
 that is meant by the word “ relevant,” then it cannot be made a 
 
 1 
 
11 
 
 matter of preliminary demonstration, but must be determined 
 in the trial. 
 
 The omissions, additions and changes made in the quotations 
 from the Inaugural Address, the Standards and the Bible, have 
 been made in the interest of conciseness, brevity and clearness. 
 The same may be said of the italicizing of those paragraphs of 
 the quotations from the Confession to which your attention is 
 particularly directed. None of these things affect the general 
 nature in any way. 
 
 It is not material where the text and citations from the Bible 
 and Confession are placed. The Book does not say where, and 
 the Assembly merely said that there should be reference to the 
 Scripture and Standards. 
 
 The Scripture, Confession and the Inaugural, so far as they 
 refer to the case, have been put in evidence; and that is entirely 
 just, for we believe in the Analogy of Faith. Professors in 
 Theological Seminaries and the ministers and elders of our 
 Church ought to know what Scripture teaches on any particular 
 doctrine. 
 
 We are ready to put all the omitted texts back again if the 
 defense desires it. 
 
 The Craighead case has been referred to, and as its influence 
 is sought in this case, it may be well to make a concise state¬ 
 ment of it here. There are some points in that decision to 
 which I think Dr. Briggs would seriously object. 
 
 The Synod of Kentucky had, virtually on the recommenda¬ 
 tion of the Presbytery of Transylvania, suspended Mr. Craig¬ 
 head from the ministry. 
 
 The Assembly stated that the Synod had been in too much 
 haste, but said that they might have “ proceeded instantly to 
 condemn the error of Mr. Craighead’s book,” as the Assembly did 
 in the case of The Gospel Plan of W. C. Davis, and then try Mr. 
 Craighead at their leisure. The Assembly expressed the opinion 
 that statements which may fairly be interpreted so as to involve 
 no heretical doctrines, the more favorable construction should 
 be allowed, to this we agree if the more favorable construction 
 is not contrary to the evidence. 
 
 Then most of the charges against Mr. Craighead were trivial, 
 
12 
 
 simple charges in the air. One charge was that he had perverted 
 the sentiments of the preachers and writers in our connection; and 
 in another he was charged with false coloring of facts, sustained 
 by no quotations from his book, no reference either to the Bible 
 or the Confession, and without a record of the oral testimony 
 given. It was with such charges before them that the Assembly 
 very properly said that a man ought not to be condemned by 
 inferences from his statements. 
 
 This must have been their meaning, for they afterwards said: 
 “But while the General Assembly are of the opinion that the 
 charges against Mr. Craighead are not clearly and fully sup 
 ported by the references, they find it to be their duty to say 
 that the impressions which they have received from hearing 
 extracts from this discqurse are very unfavorable ; and they do 
 believe that Mr. Craighead by preaching and printing this ser¬ 
 mon did subject himself justly to censure. 
 
 And, perhaps as bearing on the present case, they said: 
 
 “But they cannot approve the conduct of Mr. Craighead 
 when before the Synod. He indeed manifested a lofty and 
 independent spirit, that would not be controlled by authority, 
 and there was not exhibited a due respect for the Synod, as an 
 acknowledged judicatory of the Church of Christ. His con¬ 
 duct was not respectful and conciliatory, which certainly was a 
 return that their tenderness to him called for, but it was that of 
 a bold and confident controvertist who sets his opponents at 
 defiance. The publication of this sermon and defense of Mr. 
 Craighead after he had so earnestly been entreated by the Synod 
 not to offend against the doctrines of the Confession and. the 
 feelings of his Christian brethren was even more reprehensible, 
 as far as evidenced before us, than the first preaching of it. 
 
 The fact is, that owing to the gross irregularity of procedure, 
 both on the part of the Presbytery of Transylvania and of the 
 Synod of Kentucky, the case against Mr. Craighead was . a mis¬ 
 trial. This case is in most important and vital respects different 
 from the Craighead case. While we are perfectly willing to 
 give all valid precedents the weight which is due to them, this 
 case should be conducted according to the rules of our present 
 Book of Discipline. 
 
13 
 
 Dr. Briggs contends that the charges and specifications can¬ 
 not be considered sufficient for setting forth valid offenses unless 
 the committee show that the doctrines, indicated as contra¬ 
 dicted, are essential. But this is one of the points which is to 
 be decided by this Court in the trial, and cannot, therefore, be 
 made a question of a preliminary objection. However, since 
 Dr. Briggs has dwelt upon this matter, a few words may be 
 said upon it here. The word essential is itself undefined in our 
 ecclesiastical nomenclature, and may become misleading. 
 Essential to what, and in what sense? The Standards do not 
 employ the word, and there was no real necessity for putting it 
 into the charges. They would have been correct in form with¬ 
 out it since the Standards do not require it. It was used in 
 connection with the subscription to the Standards in 1729, but 
 not in 1788 when our Constitution was adopted, and it has come 
 into use now to some extent in connection with the subscription 
 to our Standards. It is said that those who subscribe accept 
 them in respect to essential doctrines, although the formula of 
 subscription does not contain the word. It uses the phrase 
 “ System of doctrine ” instead. But we do not give our consent 
 to the Holy Scripture in that way, but accept it in its integrity, 
 in its entirety, without reservation of any kind. The Standards 
 themselves bow to the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures. 
 The Confession states (Chap. XXXI., Sec. 3), “ All synods or 
 councils since the Apostles’ time, whether general or particular, 
 may err, and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be 
 made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in 
 both.” 
 
 Their decrees are only to be received in so far as they are 
 “ consonant to the word of God.” The Standards declare that 
 the Holy Scripture is to be received for the reason that it is the 
 Word of God, having the God of Truth as its Author, that it is 
 most necessary, the only rule of faith and obedience by which 
 all controversies of religion are to be determined. They bind 
 the conscience only by the Word of God. 
 
 It is owing to this position of supreme authority accorded to 
 the Bible that our form of Government, Chap. 1, Sec. 7, states: 
 “ That all church power, whether exercised by the body in gen- 
 
14 
 
 eral, or in the way of representation by delegated authority, is 
 only ministerial and declarative; that is to say , that the Holy 
 Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manner; that no church 
 judicatory ought to pretend to make laws, to bind the conscience 
 in virtue of their own authority; and that all their decisions 
 should be founded upon the revealed will of God.” To the same 
 purport Sec. 3 of the Book of Discipline states: “An offense is 
 anything in the doctrine, principles or practice of a church mem¬ 
 ber, officer or judicatory, which is contrary to the word of God, 
 or which, if it be not in its own nature sinful, may tempt others 
 to sin, or mar their spiritual edification.” 
 
 According to our Standards, then, everything is essential, 
 which touches the integrity of the Holy Scriptures, or any of its 
 doctrines. And for this reason our Book of Discipline says, 
 Sec. 4: “Nothing shall therefore be the object of judicial pro¬ 
 cess which cannot be proved to be contrary to the Holy Scrip¬ 
 ture or to the regulations and practice of the Church founded 
 thereon.” 
 
 Our Book of Discipline thus defines an indictable offense to be 
 anything that can be shown to be contrary, first of all to the 
 Holy Scriptures, and then, as an alternative, to the Standards 
 and practice of the Church, and to these latter only because 
 they are founded on the Scripture. This gives us a double 
 basis for an indictment, either the Scripture or the Standards 
 founded thereon. And further, matters not wrong in them¬ 
 selves, but which may lead others to sin, or mar their spiritual 
 edification are indictable offenses; and hence teachings which 
 shake people’s confidence in the Bible and undermine faith may 
 properly be made subjects of judicial process. 
 
 In view of all this it is certainly astonishing that Dr. Briggs 
 should state in his Response to the old charges and specifica¬ 
 tions, page 122, “These regulations and decisions of the supreme 
 court of the Presbyterian Church require that nothing shall be 
 considered as an offense which is not contrary to an essential 
 and necessary article of the Westminster Confession.” 
 
 What are the essential and necessary articles of the Westmin¬ 
 ster Confession of Faith ? Has any one ever determined their 
 character and number? Are we to understand by them the five 
 
15 
 
 points of Calvinism? If so, there remains certainly a wide 
 range of essential truth outside of them. But if the Supreme 
 Court of our Church has ever made such a decision—which I 
 doubt—it has no relevancy here. The Book says that any¬ 
 thing which can be proved to be contrary to the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures or to the regulations and practice of the Church founded 
 thereon is an indictable offense. That is the law of our Church 
 now. In the decision of the Craighead case, the Assembly 
 stated that the reference in charges for heresy should be directly 
 to the Scriptures, as a standard of orthodoxy, or to their Confes¬ 
 sion of Faith. Previous to 1821, the Scriptures alone appear to 
 have been made the basis of indictment in our Church courts. 
 In the Book of Discipline, which was adopted in 1788, and 
 which continued to be the law of the Church until 1821, this 
 rule is laid down in the 2d Article: “No accusation shall be 
 admitted as the foundation of a process before an ecclesiastical 
 judicatory, but where such offenses are alleged, as appear from 
 the Word of God, to merit public notice and censure of the 
 Church.” In 1821 that old Book of Discipline was revised and 
 the alternative clause, which we now have in Sec. 4 of our pres¬ 
 ent Book, viz., “or to the regulations and practice of the 
 Church founded thereon,” taken from the Book of the Scottish 
 Church, was added as a further basis of indictment. 
 
 Here, then, we have the law and practice of our Church for 
 more than a hundred years. And in the light of this we see 
 that the amended form of the charges and specifications sub¬ 
 mitted by the Prosecuting Committee in this case are sufficient 
 to put the accused on his defense, since they set forth valid 
 offenses, in that they indicate contradictions of the Scriptures 
 and the Standards of the Church. 
 
 It is for the Committee to prove that the offenses are of a 
 nature contrary to the Holy Scripture and the Standards, and 
 for the Court to decide on the validity of the proof and the 
 gravity of the offense. 
 
 It must be remembered, in his response of one year ago, Pro¬ 
 fessor Briggs filed objections to the sufficiency in form and legal 
 effect of the charges and specifications as they then stood. 
 Those objections had reference, therefore, only to the question 
 
I 
 
 16 
 
 whether or not the proceedings were in order; they were prelim¬ 
 inary objections, and were not vital. Being recognized by him 
 as of that class at that time, it is too late now for him to assert 
 that any charges made to meet those objections are such as to 
 change the general nature. 
 
 Dr. Briggs has appealed to a decision of the Supreme Court 
 of our Church, which is not found in the record, and which 
 would, in any event, not be relevant to this case. There is, 
 however, a decision of that Court in reference to this judicial 
 case, which demands our careful attention now. It says. The 
 case is remanded to the Presbytery of New York for a new trial, 
 with directions to the said Presbytery to proceed and pass upon 
 and determine the sufficiency of the charges and specifications 
 in form and legal effect, and to permit the Prosecuting Com 
 mittee to amend the specifications or charges, not changing, the 
 general nature of the same, if, in the furtherance of justice, it be 
 necessary to amend, so that the case may be brought to issue 
 and tried on the merits thereof as speedily as may be practi¬ 
 cable.” In sending down this order, the Supreme Court of our 
 Church, since it had these charges and specifications under con- N 
 sideration, must have held the charges sufficient in their general 
 nature or intent to put the accused on his defense; and the right 
 and proper thing to do now is to follow the directions of that 
 Court, and, with the least possible delay, join the issue and try the 
 case. This is, no doubt, unpleasant business to us all, but it is 
 the orderly way for Presbyterians to settle such difficulties, and 
 it becomes us as members of this Court of the Church of Jesus 
 Christ, to conduct the trial in good spirit, patiently, and with 
 that candor and thoroughness which shall commend the judg¬ 
 ment which we may reach to the confidence of our Church at 
 
 large. 
 
 / 
 
\ 
 
 
 
, 
 
 v ^ • v •>. . -• '• a v-.- ■•? ' A / • ': v ' v- ’* v. 
 
 ' v ’ * '• w. ' v., -■ - ' 1 
 
 .S' •. f ■ ■ v. •■ . . : - 
 
 (A 
 
 ( &:-i\ ■ . r ' ' ^ . , ' • ■ . V; !■>$< V;.- 
 
 • ^ ' } v ; V '7v,,vr, VyH'V. - y<r<.; ' .V\'<>; ,; ■ V& \ |; " mV: ■»"'> ..vi ‘ V 
 
 • 1 ,v ,. ' .: - V-: • ;\ • : -r, I- *• "... ' ■ *i - V • .*i 
 
 - - \ « hi* ' n, „ ■ .t u 'ii \ ; ,' nj 
 
 \ - • vC' r - 'V ' m, j. y.,y" 
 
 V , r! ■ ■ , ■ ; 3- 
 
 ■ "• ■. ?; fr- \ '"-•M . ■' f . ' 
 
 - '.At s • -l * v » • , ■ h' - 1 V - * •*' < ' ^ ; 
 
 v ., s 4 • . %*. ,,. 0 4 ■ ■ • . : •• ■ ; - ■» /■ . x / . . v .v v - 4.- ' 
 
 fev VV-':v V' >? V : ' M: 'y ' V.' \ . '• ■ v;V 
 
 . 
 
 f Xa’ v .