Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-26

there has not always been an agreement in
opinion. The head Of the prosecuting commit
tee was his classmate. He had hoped that the
church at this time would be able to reach a
final decision in this case which would send DIR.
Briggs home happy in the consciousness that
the church retained its confidence in him
There were three ways to settle this case.
First, to dismiss it; second, to refer it to the
synod. and third. to reach a decision.
He had now come to the conclusion that the
best thing for the church is that the court go
right on and issue, but issue in magnanimity
and devotion to the truth. He had supposed
that DR.. Briggs was willing to stand trial In the
synod without further resort to technicalities
The church is perishing with technicalities
and what is needed now is decision He be-
lieved in the reference to the synod if the case
could fully be heard. He committed himself
to hearing the case now first TO bring about
clear delverance OF the church. and then the
treatment OF Dr. Briggs with magnanimity.
DIR. HERRICK JOHNSON.
DR.. Herrtck johnson of Chicago next spoke
He said in the position he took he knew he
parted company with some of his best friends
1t was an opinion, however. on the law Of the
church and not on a matter of doctrine. He
argued that the appeal could be brought to this
assembly properly only through the synod
The law made leaping the synod exceptional
to the rule An exception could be justified
only by exceptional reasons. They must be
reasons that could not apply to all cases.
They must have some extraordinary and
peculiar reason. Judged by this test he
wished to look at the reasons offered
by the prosecuting committee. The first rea-
son given that the would have to be de-
cided by the assembly any way was not excep-
tional, because that reason was true in all cases
involving doctrine. The second reason
voting in assembly if it first tried the case also
applied to every case OF appeal. He examined
the other reasons and insisted that none was
exceptional The widespread discussion and
alarm was d condition likely to occur in any doc
trinal controversy. 1t was asked il they should
send the case back to a body whose jurisdiction
DR.. Briggs denied? Why not? He denied also
the jurisdiction of the assembly. The synod
he said, would take care of its own jurisdiction.
They did not in sending the case to the synod
evade, but rather maintained the right Of APP
peal. He urged that they should be manly and
give DR.. Briggs all the right he claimed There
was another case coming up this fall in the synod
What IL they decided this case here? They
asked them to put themselves in Smiths place.
What an overwhelming influence the action Of
the assembly would have on Smiths case.
Why not wait and let these cases both be fairly
heard? Justice needed no haste. They should
give all defendants all their rights. year
might make the difference between a
right and wrong judgment. He urged that
they should give the synod all its rights and go
consideration Of this question Of right.
REV. DIR. MaAw.
The next speaker, Rev. DR.. A. P. McGaw Of
Toledo, Ohio, said that the burden of proof
rested on the prosecution to show why the
synod should be passed. One CT the strongest
reasons offered he thought was that as this is
the final court the case might just well be
heard now at any time. But it was not
meant by the rule, he argued, that the synod
should be passed over simply because it has
not the power OF final decision.
The next reason that this is an important
case, a statement which was Endorsed by both
Sides The prosecution assert that Dr. Briggs
teaches fundamental errors. The presbytery
Of New York did not agree with this view
The speaker said that he had ex-
amined the writings Of DR.. Briggs
and he doubted whether DR.. Briggs
could be called q hereto according to the
standards Of the church. He was firm in the
belief that this was an important case. but that