Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-05-27
TBEGENERALASSHMBLY
Gets Down to Work in Earnest on
the Briggs Case.
DOCTOR BRIGGS ADDRESSES THE
Assembly in Defense Of His Position, Holding
that there is No Good Ground for the Assembly
Considering the Appeal-The Appeal
Allowed and VII Be Heard.


at the Presbyterian General Assembly
this morning, Mr.. Bottone, OF Phlladel-
phia, officiating. The reading and ap-
proval Of the minutes and the giving OF
notices consumed more time, so that 1t
was getting late when the moderator,
opening the Briggs case, read from the
book Of discipline, calling attention to
the solemn business Of the Assembly as
a court OF Jesus Christ, enjoining due
deliberation and warning speakers that
they must not interfere in any way to
the merits Of the case, as it was TO be
an entirely constitutional argument.
DR.. Birch, for the appellant, then took
the floor to speak on behalf of himself
and colleagues.
In his address DR.. Birch gave some
reasons why the appellant has over
leaped the synod of New York. This
course is based upon the provision Of
Section 102 OF the book OF discipline
that appeals shall generally be taken to
the next superior judiciary. 1t was
claimed at first that this course OF pro-
ceedure is constitutional form.
Chapter II, Sections 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 tho appellant has gone around
ordinary procedure, it has acted in q
constitutional and regular manner
The present course is taken in order to
get constitutional advice which the as
sembly 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
presbytery of New York?
Second, 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 agitated
1.-THE historic controversies have con-
cerned the relations OF Gentiles,
Christians TO Hebrews, the doctrine Of
the trinity and OF justification by faith.
Fourth, great question is now 10 be
settIed-the plea Of the appellant is
faced by presbyteries here represented,
which have spoken to a number Of
more than four score in trumpet tones
In opposition TO the views referred to.
Fifth, the Presbytery of New York
committed errors in its administration
of law, and compelled the committee to
appeal.
Sixth, If the prosecutor were an in
dividual some show Of reason might be
presented why regular procedure
should be followed, but the appellant is
the Presbyterian Church Of the United
States of America.
BY 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
administration Of the law, your appell-
ant respectfully and earnestly asks the
General Assembly to entertain the ap-
peal.
When DIR. Birch took his seat, point
of order was made that the appellant
case is the PreSbytery OF New York.
The moderator decided it not well
taken.
DR.. Briggs took the floor to object to
the entertainment Of the appeal. He
stated that he is not responsible for the
action OF his presbytery, and for it he
mad not asked, yet he is compelled to
appear, seemingly to defend the pres
bytery. He proceeded to give some
account of the history OF the case and
stated his reasons for appealing.
The points made by DR.. Briggs were
as follows:
First-The reasons presented by ap-
pellant are not such as to justify the
general assembly in entertaining the
appeal. Four reasons are given.
First-Their belief that this is one Of
the most important questions In the
history OF the Presbyterian church. 1t
is valid reason why they should appeal
to the synod Of New York, provided
they have right to appeal, which we
do not concede, but it is not valid
reason why they should pass over the
synod of New York and appeal to the
General Assembly.
II they can sustain their charges the
synod Of New York is the judicial body
before which they should 20, otherwise
they must assign valid reasons for the
opinion that the synod Of New York
may not do them justice, but the i'm
portauce Of the trial is another
reason why the synod as an inter-
mediate judicial ought TO have it's
constitutional share in the proceedings.
II the assembly could entertain this
reason you would wrong the defendant.
The defendant does not think it credit
able that this general assembly could do
him such wrong. The second reason is
the desire to secure recommendation
OF errors Of the defendant by the su-
preme judicial, but the supreme Judi
cial cannot condemn the defendant, or
his course, without a trial, for il lacks
original Jurisdiction in the case, aid
can only act after 4 verdict has been
given in the Presbytery.
The reasons cannot be entertained
without prejudicing the case. The
defendant claims that his address is in
entire accord with scripture ard the
system Of doctrines taught in the West
minister confession. Again and again
he has affirmed his adherence to the
confession and the holy scriptures. He
is entitled to the presumption Of inno-
cence until he is proven guilty after
trial.
The third reason is that the General
Assembly has special responsibility re-
garding the doctrine OF the church.
This is a general statement TO which no
presbyter could make any objection,
but il is no reason why the Presbytery
of New York should be ignored when
they dismissed the case. II dissatisfied
they should frame charges. They might
have then had trial and averdict dur
ing the past winter. But why is speed
necessary? The importance Of the case
calls for the caution OF deliberstion.