New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-06-22
DIR. RAMSEY ON THE VETO.
WHY HE DID NOT VOTE AGAINST BRIGGS
cRITIusING THE ACTION OF THE GENERAL AS
sEMRLY AND REGRETTING IT.


sEMBLY AND REGRETTING II.
The Rev. Dr. j. s. Ramsey, of the Harlem Presoy'
terrain Church, explained yesterday morning TO hs
congregation his attitude as an antIrevisonis' -
well a member Of the New York Presoytery In voting
with the minority In the General Assembly at Detrois
against the veto Of the transfer Of Dr. Briggs TO the
chair OF Biblical theology in Union Theological sem
mary. His text was from Matthew Kill. %. 20 "Tns
servants said unto him, wilt thou then. that we 90
and gather them upi But he said, Nay; lest while
We gather up the We root up also the wheat with
Them The theme Of the discourse that undue
haste and radical methods in remedying evils how
ever good the motive may damage the very interests
which it is desired foster. The preacher brfehy
sketched the Of DIT. Briggs down 10 the conditions
which prevailed at the gathering OF the Assembly, IN
eudng the proposition for his trial by the New Yorh
Presbytery Such trial, DR.. Ramsey believed was Tor
the best interests OF the Church. as well as for the
accused man. who had himself expressed desire thae
II should take place he contended for the In
dependent action Of the Presbytery as court VI
original Jurisdiction, and must resent every semosnce
OF interference on the part OF the General Assembly
until the case comes properly before the court on sD-
peal
Referring to the report Of the Committee on Tneo-
logical seminaries, DIR. Ramsey said 1t almoss
seems like touch Of satire that tie report should
warn the Assembly against amy expression OF opinion
that could Justly be regarded as preludgment of ue
case, and then recommend a veto, when the common
judgment OF men only find one meaning In the
Veto and that is preiudgment. In uoang this the An
scnbly had to find virtual verdict against Dr. brsg''
oustng him from his position and declaring him
heretical without observing single point In Inc
established process whereby conviction Is reached.
Dr. Ramsey held that pending the trial OF Dr. bngss
and an announcement of an official verdict MS uhhN
ness for the professorshp had not been Judiciary es
tabished and hence could not be judciay acted upon
by the General Assembly, even granting the doubtful
right OF the Union Seminary Board Of lo1O to delegate
the pSwer OF veto to the Assembly. There was no
reason why that body should drag Dr. Briggs into their
discussions and canvass his theology at this stage That
duty belongs TO the Presbytery OF New YORK Inc
Assembly could have covered the By simply do
clarng that no election had taken place ana referring
IT back to the Union Board with instructions TO reopen
IL de novo, and report the General Assembly
such disposition Of affairs he said would nave
had the merit Of consistency, In that 1t would have
laid on the responsible party the duty OF correcting
a mistake assuming one 70 have been made
al objected mainly 10 the Assembly's Veto con-
tinued the preacher, because believe IL eAerclsoa
an authority not granted by the Church cohsutuuoh'
II is representative body, deriving all It's powers
from, the Presbvteries Never did the Presbyterfes
formally consent TO the Assembly assuming this veto
mower and never did the Assembly ask for II. Fur
thenoe the rights OF Presbytery were infrnged upon
nv tho Assembly compelling ew-York delegates 10
vote on the main question. In the Interests OF lusuce
the Assembly should have ruled out OF the mousse on
this question the enle New York delegation instead
Of this the mere suggestion Of that course was greeted
with torrent of noes The Assembly thus refused
N LET any man decline voting thus sending us back 10
act as Jurors and prosecutors when the case OF
DR. Briggs comes before the Presbytery with our con-
victions expressed in advance OF our recoueo 'oe''
II was at this point IT seemed 10 me the tyranny vi
majority reached It's climax. Our civil courts "o"
calia cd
with half the particulars and none OF the formahty
that attaches TO our action, had expressed himsG on
the case to be submitted to the Jury. And at the
nroper time the question may pcrtinently be raised
whether or no the coercion Of the General Assembly
has not disqualified the whole New-fork deegauou
from taking part In the trial
ar by the laws Of our Church the members OF an
Inferior judicatory, though also members Oh inc
higher must retire from the house when the final
vote is being taken on that has come up on ap-
peal from the lower court, to avoid even the
appearance Of prejudice how is 1t possible Tor Us 10
vote in the highest court on seeming verdict ana
then consistently TO the lower court ana SIT Oh
"9 AnotSer reason why voted with the minority
because the action Of the Assembly deprived Dr biggs
Church Though the action was not Regarded as
trial it all the more oppressive since II reached by
usual processes that protect the rights Of accused
men Undoubtedly the majority voting for TINS ho veto
And vet this is charge specifically mentioned In our
books as very serious, which the Presbytery should
Sn II should not have been even indirectly touched
by the Assembly until it came before 1t from the
aThe refusal 10 1--we proper weight to DR.. B1ggs's
last solemn official utterance respecting the charges
mOny and when man longer believe his fellow
man. even when weweighed words are uttered under
solemn sense Of responsibility. the bonds Of govern
ment are loosened, ev1 may go unpublished and virtue
unprotected