The record-union., 1892-05-27
Special to the REcoRD-Us1oS.

PORTLAND, May 26.-This is the first
cloudy day since the assembly convened.
AS the hearing Of the parties in the case
ofthe appeal ofthe Prosecuting Committee
against the action of the Presbytery Of
New York, in dismissing the charges and
specifications in the heresy trial of DR..
Briggs, is about to proceed the heavens
frown heavily with clouds. An immense
audience, which taxes the capacity of the
church where the assembly is sitting, is
here to greet the speakers.
The order is for an opening address
from the appellants, reply by DR.. Briggs
and the rebuttal by the prosecution.
Each party is limited to ninety minutes.
Devotional exercises were conducted as
usual by Mr.. Bolton of Philadelphia.
Yesterdays minutes were read and ap-
proved.
The giving out ofnotices occupied more
time, so that it was $50 when the
Moderator read from the Book of Disci-
pline, calling attention to the solemn bus
mess of the assembly as a Court of Jesus
Christ, enjoining due deliberation and
warning the speakers that they must not
refer in any way to the merits of the case,
as this is TO be an entirely constitutional
argument
DR.. Birch, for the appellants, then took
the floor i'll behalf of himself and col
leagues.
In his address DIR. Birch gave some
reasons why appellants have overleaped
the Synod of New York. This course"
he said, lis based upon the provision of
Section l02 of the Book of Discipline, that
an appeal shall generally be taken to the
neXtSuperior Judicatory. twas claimed:
"First-That this course of procedure
was constitutional form of government.
Chapter Il, Sections and 5, states that
the General Assembly shall receive and
issue ali appeals and shall have the
power of deciding in all controversies
respecting doctrine and discipline
While the appellants have gone around
the ordinary procedure, it has actedin a
constitutional and regular manner. The
present course is taken in order to get
constitutional advice, which the assem-
bly, can give, in order to restore peace in
the church. Has, then, the committee
done right to bring this question before
this assembly in showing irreguIarity in
the action of the Presbytery OF New
York?
''Second-The question is one of in
tense importance.
"Ihird-The case involves doctrines
which are fundamental to the church and
of greater importance than any other
which has ever agitated it. Historic con-
troversies' have concerned relations of
Gentle Christians to Hebrews, the doc
trine of the Trinity and Of the justifica-
tion by faith.
"Fourth-The great question is the one
to be now settled. The plea of appellants
is enforced by the Presbyteries hereby
represented, which have spoken, to the
number of more than four-ScOre, in trum-
pet tones in opposition to views referred
TO.
'Fifth-The Presbytery of New York
committed errors in its administration of
law and SO compelled the committee to
appeal.
dividual, some show of reason might be
presented why the regular procedure
should be followed, but the appellant is
the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America
"By implication, faithlessness to the
ordination vows was alleged, In the
name Of the church, and with abundant
precedent in the name Of the administra-
ton of the law, your appellants respect
fully and earnestly ask the General AS
sembly to entertain our appeal"
AT 1907 O'Clock DIR. Birch took his seat.
a point Of order was made that the APP
pellee in the case is the Presbytery of
New York.
The Moderator decided it was not well
taken, and at eight minutes past 10 O. o'clock
DIR. Briggs took the floor to object to The
entertainment of the appeal. He stated
that he was not ponsible for the action
of his presbytery, and for it he had not
asked, yet he is compelled to appear
seemingly To defend the preSbytery. He
proceeded to give some account of the
history of the case and stated his reasons
for appealing. His answer was also
based upon the word generally quoted
above. He asserted that strong reasons
must be given why any departure from
the ordinary method should be allowed.
Exceptions are not always, even at the
discretion of the assembly, without COM
Inanding reasons for their course. In
this case there are no exceptional reasons
why an appeal should be entertained, and
there are insuperable reasons why it
should not be entertained.
The points made by DR.. Briggs were as
follows; "First-Assign valid reasons for
the opinion that the Synod of New York
may not do them Justice. But the inn
portauce of the trial is another reason
why the Synod, as an intermediate Judi
ciary, ought to have it's constitutional
share in the proceedings. If the assembly
could entertain this reason you would
wrong the defendant. Defendant could
not think II credible that this General As
senlbly could do him such wrong.
The second reason is desire to secure
condemnation of the errors of defendant
by Supreme judicatory. But the iudi-
catory cannot condemn the defendant or
his errors without a trial. For this it
lacks necessary Jurisdiction in the case
and can only act after verdict has been
given in the presbytery. This reason
cannot be entertained without preiudic-
ing the case. Defendant claims that his
address Is III entire accord with the Holy
Scripture and the system of doctrine
taught in the Westminster Confession.
Again and again he has affirmed his ad-
herence TO confession on the Holy Script
ureS. He is entitled to the presumption
of innocence until he is proved guilty
after the trial.
''rhe third reason is thatl the General
Assembly has special responsibility re-
garding the doctrine of the church. This
Is q general statement TO which no Pres
byterlan could make any objections, but
1t is no reason why the appeal should be
entertained by the General Assembly.
The PresbyteTy and Synods share in the
responsibility. No one would suggest
that all cases of appeal are TO be taken di-
rect 10 the General Assembly without
reference TO the Synod. The appellants
must show that the General Assembly has
a special responsibility as to the doctrines
in defendants address, which they do not
have as regards other doctrines in other
writings and by other persons. in order
TO make this appeal an exceptional one
under this reason. This proof they do
not offer.
1.-The fourth reason is that appellants
desire speedy settlement of the qtes-
ton. Why, then, did they not acquiesce
in the decision of the Presbytery of New
York when it dismissed the case? If dis
satisfied they should have framed new
charges and specifications, sufficient in
form and legal effect. They might then
have had a trial and a verdict during the
past winter. But WHY is speed necessary!
The importance of the case calls for eau
ton and deliberation.o
l,s,rl I< o-.l ia