The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-27

leagues. In his address DIR. Birch gave
some reasons why the appellant has over
leaped the synod of New York, saying:
This course IL based upon the provision o
section 100 OF the Book of Discipline. "That an
appeal shall generally be taken to the next SUI
perior judicstory." 1t was claimed:
First-That this course of procedure Ia const-
tutfonal The form OF government, chapter IL
sections and ), states that the general assembly
''shall receive and issue ell appeals" and shall
have 'sthe power Of deciding in all controversies
respecting doctrine and discipline" While APP
reliant has gone around the ordinary procedure
t has acted in the constitutional aud regular
manner The present course Is taken in order
to get constitutional advice, which the assembly
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
irresuiarity in the action OF the presbytery of
New orkY
portancs.
Thrd--The case involves doctrines which are
fundamental to the church and of greater i'm
portance than any other question which has
ever agitated it Historic controversies have
concerned the relations of the gentle Christians
TO the Hebrews, the doctrine OF the trinity and
OF Justification by faith. greater question is
the one now TO be settled
Fourth-The plea of appellant 10 enforced by
the psesbyteries here represented, which have
spoken to the number of more than four score in
trumpet tones in opposition to the views re-
ferred to.
Fitth--The preshytery OF New York committed
errors in Its administration of the law. and SO
compelled the committee TO appeal.
Sixth-if the prosecutor were an individual,
some show of reason might be- presented why
the regular procedure should be followed but
the appellant is the presbyterian church in the
Cnited States of America" By imnlication
(,it tNt
in the name OF the church, and with abundant
precedent, and in tho name Of the aGlninistrs-
tion OF the law, your appellan. respectfully
ard earnestly asks the general assembly 20 en-
tertaiu ouT appeal
At 1907 DR.. Birch took his seat. A point
OF order was made that the appellee in the
the case is the preshytery of New York.
The moderator decided it was not well
taken, and at l0:0S DR.. Briggs took the
floor TO object 10 the entertainment of the
appeal. He stated:
That he ia not responsible for the action O.
his p-eSbytery ana for il he had not asked, yet
be is compelled 20 appear seemingly to defend
the presbyicry. He proceeded 10 give some ae-
count of the history of the case ana stated his
reasons for appealing. His answer WIS also
based upon the generally" quoted above He
asserted that strong reasons must be given why
any departure from the ordinary method should
DC aAkoNcl. S,t&oNs are not always allowed.
even at the discretion ~ the assembly, without
commanding reasons for such course In thi.
case there are no exceptional reason. why the
appeal should be entertained, and there are in
superable reasons Why II should not Re eater.
tanned.
The points made by DR.. Briggs were as
follows:
First-The reasons presented by appellants are
not such rs 70 Justify the general assembly in
the arpaaI FDIr rsa Suns co..
The first is their belief that this trial Is one of
the mos; important In the history of the Pfe<hy-
terrain church. IL lie valid reason why they
should not appeal 10 the synod OF New Ynrk
proyiiei they have the right OF appeal vhirh
we do not coaeede But II il Is valid reason
Why should they pass over the synod OF New
York and appeal II she geasrai assembly? II
they think that they can sustain their charges
the synod of New York is the iaGlca,n-v
before which they should 50, other.
for their opinion that the SYNOD Of
New York may not do them Justice. Bus the
Importance oi the trtsl Is smother reason why
the synod, is an intermediate ,ucicstOry, ought
10 have lis constitutional share IN the proceel-
ing. Ii the assembly eou)d entertain th.s rea
SON you would wrong defendant Defendant
Goes not think IL cEe3itaa.e that this general
assembly could do him such wroag
The second reason is desire 70 secure cor.
demnstloa Of The errors II the defendant by tue
supreme iua(eatory. BuE the supreme luiicA-
tory cannot condemn tho lie ens;aEi Or his errors
without TRIAL FOR this u lGcks the necessary
original jurisdiction ia the case aad oa1 oRlv
act after verdict hss been given II the pgeShy-
terry. This reason cannot he entertained with.
out pretudtciGg the ease Defendant claims
that his address IS entire accord with the holy
scriptures and system o. doctrine taught IN ise
Westminster confession Again ani again he
has asiirmea hts adherence 10 the confessional
aud holy scriptures, tie IS entitled 10 she pre-.
sumpsl0n 81 innoeeneS uRai he IS proven guilty
ritter the trial
Tie third reason is .hss the general assembly
has special responsibility regarding the doc