The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-05-27


cmn business OF
the assembly as
Dr. BRIGGS. court OF Jesus
Christ, enjoining due delibcration and
warning speakers that they must not
interfere in any way to tho merits OF
the case, as it was to be an entirely con-
sti,u,ional argument. DR.. Birch, ior
thc appellant, then took the floor to
speak on behalf Of himself and col
leagues.
In his address DR.. Birch gave some
reasons why the appellants have over
eaped the synod Of New York. This
course is based upon tho provision OF
section lO2 OF the book OF discipline that
appeals shall generally be taken to the
next superior judiciary. 1t was claim
ed al first that this course OF procedure
is constitutional form OF government.
Chapter l2, sections 4 and 5, state that
the general assembly shall receive and
issue all appeals and shall have the
power OF deciding in all controversies
respecting doctrines and discipline.
While the appellants have gone around
the ordinary procedure, it has acted in
a constitutional and regular manner.
The present course is taken in order 10
get constitutional advice, which the as
scmbly can give, in order TO restore
peace in the church. Has then, the
committee done right to bring. this
question before, this assembly in show.
Ing Irregularities in the actions OF the
.rn-by4nr,. os Now, \-o.1.D 7.Irf7. ..a.
Second-The question is ono OF in
tense importance.
Third-The case involves doctrines
which are fundamental to the church,
and OF greater Importance than any
other question which has ever agitated
it-the historic controversies that have
concerned the relations ofGentilc Chris.
tians 10 Hebrews, the doctrine OF the
trinity, and OF Justification by faith.
A GREAT QUESTION.
Fourth-A great question is now to
bc settled-thc plea Of appellant is
forced by presbytcries here represent
ed, which have spoken to number OF
more than tour score in trumpet tones
in opposition to the views referred to.
Ftth-rhe presbytery OF New York
committed errors in its administration
OF law and compelled the committee to
appeal.
SiSth-lf the prosecutor was an indi.
vldual some show might be presented,
why regular procedure should be iol.
lowed, but the appellant is the Prcsby.
terlan church in the United States OF
America.
BY implication, said DR.. Birch, faith
!essness to ordination VOWS was alleged.
In the name oil the church and with
abundant precedent, in the name OF tho
administration Of the law, your appel
!ants respectfully and earnestly ask the
general assembly to entertain our ap.
peal.
When DR.. Birch took his seat point
o. order was made that the appellant in
the case is the presbytery oi New York.
The moderator decided it not well
taken.
DR.. Briggs took the floor to object 10
the entertainment Of tho appeal. lie
stated that he is not responsible for the
action OF his presbytcry and for it he
mad not asked, yet he is compelled to
appear, seemingly to defend tho presby-
IeFy. lie proceeded to give some ac-
count Of the history OF tho case and
stated MS reasons ior appealing.
me points made by DR.. Briggs were
as follows: %
DIR. BRIGGS on TIE FLOOR.
Inc reasons presented by appellants
are not such rs to justify the general
rr<seMDiy IN entertaining their appeal.
f9Gr reasons are given. .sJS (,
=, fl9s1-Ihcir belief that this is one OF
Sie most important questions in the
history OF the Presbyterian church. It
avalld reason why they should ap-
PEA 10 the synod Of New York, pro-
rsagd they have a right to appeal, which
Neuo not concede. But 1t is not q valid
n. arason why they should pass over the
ssno ssnoa Of New York and appeal to the
zen general assembly. Ii they think they
Sn Ssn SUSTAIN their charges the synod Of
NV, ,,Sx 1ork Is the judicial body before
mn0. mm,sh they should go; otherwise they
must assign valid reasons for tho opin-
,oa nn tE1t the synod OF New York may
no; no! DO them Justice, but the
Importance OF tho trial is an
osher o reason why the synod, is
an nihtermediate judicial body ought 10
o.NS, naaS us constitutional share in tile pro-
,esulnes' ,s;n II the assembly could enter
J0;a %'a .hls reason You would wrong the
JIei!ehGans' ,Iii The defendant does not
sn,ahI snanS tcFeditable that this general as.
senpiy se Could do him such wrong. The
second second reason is the desire to secure a
;isugInihendatlon Of errors OF tho de-
,eSnaant ,Sa BY the supreme judicial, but
Se ,Se supreme judicial cannot condemn
H'e defendant or his recourse without
Si1iai' VA lor it lacks original jurisdiction
dT A., me case and can only act after a YER
s,ss tas mas been given in tho presby-
,s,y, ,S,y. The reasons cannot be en-
's1Tfhaihea Th without prejudcing the case.
an me defendant claims that his nd
o,GIs onS IS In entire accord with scripture
,HH ,bs me system OF doctrine taught in
s,s mS Westminster confession. Again
sG ,o.t tasaln he has affirmed his adherence
iVsae ,n,a0 confession and the Holy Scrip
,;n. lures. lie is entitled 10 the nrcsump.
onti, mOn OF innocence until ho is proven
/ Sulty aitor r;o) 81 IllIl'l-. -