Omaha daily bee., 1892-05-27
THEY IGNORED The SYNOD
Presbyterian General Assembly Takes Full
Charge Of the Briggs Herssy Trial
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE FULL BODY
Right of the General Body to Hear the Case
Denied by DIR. BriEgs-Points
Raised by Both sides
Religious News.


has been consumed by the Briggs case ana
the end is not yet in sight. The appeal Of
the prosecution committee has been enter
tanned and the assembly has sat for itself
the task for tomorrow of hearing the appeal
as 1t shall be presented by the appellants,
the committee of prosecution, the appellee,
Or. Briggs, the members OF the judca-
tory" appealed from the presbytery of New
York and the members assembly. A vista
OF possibilities in the case is too long TO be
followed out in detail here. Only one thing
will act as bar 10 an indefinite continue
tion OF the case and that is growing de-
sire for its close.
The Presbyterian general assembly was
slow in getting TO work on the order of the
day-hearing arguments in the Briggs case
Finally DIR Birch took The floor to present
the case against DR.. Briggs.
In his address DIR Birch gave some rea-
sons why the appellants have overleaped the
synod of New York. This course is based
upon the provision of section l02 of the book
of discipline, thai appeals shall generally oe
taken TO the next superior Judiciary. 1t was
claimed:
DIR. Birch's Reasons.
''First, That this course of procedure Is a
| constitutional form OF government. Chapter
| xii, sections and ., state that the general
assembly shall receive and issue all appeals
| and shall have the power of deciding in all
| controversies respecting doctrine and disci-
| pline. While the appellants have gone
around ordinary procedure, they have acted
in constitutional Rnd regular manner
Second, The present course Is taken in
order to ge. tine constitutional advice, which
the assembly can give, in order to restore
| peace in the church. Has then the commit
| tee done right TO bring this question before
this assembly in showing Irregularities in
the action of the presbytery of New YORK!
| The question is one of intense Importance
Third The case involves doctrines which
are fundamental TO the church and of greater
| importance than any other question which
| has ever agItaled 1.-THE historic contro-
| versies have concerned the relations of
| gentle Christians TO Hebrews, the doctrine
| OF the trinity and Of justification by faith.
Fourth, A great question is now to be
| settled-the plea of appellauts-ls ii to be
| eniorced by pres oyterles here represented,
| winch have spoken, to q number of more
| than four score, i'll trumpet tones in opposi-
| lion TO the views referred to!
| Fifth, The presbytery has committed
1 errors its administration of law and com
| PEELED the committee TO appeal.
| Sixth. If the prosecutor were an indi-
| vidual some some show OF reason might be
| presented why regular procedure should be
4 followed but the appellant is the Presby-
teriRn church in -the United lStntosr ef
1 America.
| ssBy implication said DR. Birch ''faith-
| lessness to ordination vows was alleged. In
| the name of the church, and with abundant
| precedent, IN the name OF the administrator
| OF the law, your appellants respectfully and
| earnestly ask the general assembly 10 enter
| tain our appeal.
When DR. Birch took his seat. a point of
order was made by the appellee IN the case
| as the pres bytery of New York. The
| moderator decided IL not well taken.
DIR. Briggs Took the Floor.
Dr. Briggs took the floor to OBJECT 10 the
1 entertainment of tine appeal He stated that
| ne is not responsible for the action of his
| resbytery, and for il he had not asked yet
| he is compelled 10 appear seemingly, to de-
| fend the prespytery. He then proceeded ID
| give some account of the history of the case
! ana stated his reasons for appealing His
| answer WINS also based upon the words
| general w quoted above He asserted that
| strong reasons must be given why any ue-
parture from the ordinary methods should be
| allowed. The exceptions are not always at
| the discretion Of the assembly without com
| manding reasons for such course. 1u this
case there are no exceptional reasons why M
| appeal should be entertained and there are
| insuperRble reasons why il should not be
entertained. The points made by Mr.. Briggs
were as follows:
1.-The reasons presented by the appellants
4
bly, in entertaining their appeal. -Four rea-
| sons are given:
FIRST Their belief that it is one OF the
most important questions IN the history of
| the Pres byterlap church. IL is a valid rea-
son why they should appeal TO the synod OF
| New YORK, provided they have a right OF
| appeal, which we do not concede. But 1t is
| not valid reason why they should pass over
| the synod of New York ana appeal TO the
| general assembly, if they think they can sus-
Tain their charges. The synod of New Yorh
Is the 1udicatory before which they go
| otherwise they must assign valid reasons for
| the opinion that the synod OF New York may
not 40 them justice. But the Importance Of
| the trial is another reason why the synod as
an intermediate judicatory, ought To have its
constitutional share in the proceedings. i
the embly could entertain this reason yor
would wrong the defendant. The defend
ant does not think 1t credltab!e that this
general assembly could do hlm such wrong
Formally Demands Trial.
1.-THE second reason is the desire to secure
condemnation OF errors OF the defendant
| by the supreme iudicatory. But the supreme
| ludlcatory cannot condemn the defendant
without trial, for 1t lacks original iurlsdic
! | tion in the case and can only act after u yer.
| dict has been given in the presoytery. Thest
| reasons cannot be entertained withou
: | prelcdlcing the case. The defendant claims
| that his address Is in entire accord with ho J
| scripture and the system of doctrine taugh
, | in the Westminster confession. Again Rnc
| again he has affirmed his adherence TO thi
ontession and the holy scriptures. He i
| entitled TO the presumption OF innoeenc
? until he is proved guilty after trial
''rhe third reason is that the general as
. semby has special responsibility regard
! ing the doctrine Of the church. This is
. general statement, 10 which no Presbyterian
s could make any objection but l. is no reaso
why pres bytery Of New York should .
ignored when They dismissed the case.
dissatisfied, they should have framed neI
charges lnd specifications sufficient in tOrI
= and legal effect They might have then ha
0 q trial ana D verdict during the past winter
Q But why is speed necessary the import
n ancs of the cuse calls for the caution OF dI
Liberation. This appeal cannot he entei
tanned because there are no precenenLs
justify II. II is the established usage of IN
D supreme court 10 refer appeals back TO IN
a synod, aud to entertain This appeal as 10 el
y tRblish dangerous precedent The appei
: cannot be entertained because II would ue
5 prive the defendant OF the right 10 the cor
Q siderauon OF his case before his synod.
q Fourth, the appeal cGunot be ontertaine
: because IL might deprive more than 100 mil
q listers and elders OF the presbytery OF Ne
u York, VINO have taken action in the case .
= their complaint 10 The synod, Of their rigt
u OF complaint
. Rlghts of the New York synod.
A IA cumnlalu1 Arainst tha action "A.