St. Paul daily globe., 1893-05-25
charged are fundamental. The charges

charged are fundamental. The charges
relate
First-To the question as to the ST.
preme and only authority i'll matters or
faith and practice.
Second-To the question as to the in
errancy or truthfulness of the inspired
word of God.
Tllrd--TQ the historical validity of
the Old Testament.
Fourth-As to the fulfllment Of Mes
sianc prediction. question OF supreme
Importance i'll its bearing upon the view
which is taken of the truthfulness OF
Scripture and of the truthfulnesS of
God.
Fifth-And lastly, there is the doc
trine of redemption, concerning which
it has been alleged that Prof. Briggs
teachings have been especially errone-
Gus and hurtful, bnt which could only
be partially tried in the lower court.
Here is series of errors, covering the
whole fundamental structure of our
faith. 1t is a aquestion purely doctrinal.
and therefore of universal Importance
so far as Presbyterianism is concerned.
1t can be finally settled by no presby-
tsry or synod. but requires the decision
of the presbytery and church in its
highest court.
In reply TO the argument that an ap-
peal cannot be taken from verdict OF
acqulttal, DR.. Birch said that this was
equivalent to a claim that part OF the
church was greater than the whole.
1.-The sitting of this venerable court to-
day in this city," said he, 'as the capital
of the nation, is due to the fact that it
took treasure and blood to establish the
truth that such a doctrine in our
political system! was nothing else than
treason against the government. so
does this court know that he who
teaches that the power Of the general
assembly can be nullitied by the will
of single presbytery lifts the banner
of treason against the presbytery and
church. With all respect to the accused
in this case, l ain ready to say that his
personal interest is as nothing in COM
parison to the interest OF the church in
whose name he has been teaching. The
question what is really Presbyterian
doctrine is to be answered, not for our
selves alone, but for all American Pres
byteranS, both now and for years to
come, and must be answered by the
whole church. Hence your appellant,
as the spokesman of hundreds of thou
san0s of Presbyterans, in the name OF
law and order, of denOminational 10y
atty, of Scripture precept and Blolcal
example, in the name of the historic,
orthodox, evangelical, constitutional,
missionary Presbyterian branch Of the
church, beSeeches this venerable court
to bless the church and the world and to
exercise its authority In crisis so mo-
mentouS as to make every plea for de-
lay eff judgment out of order. Thus
your honorable body will protect our
communion from what one of your num-
ber, DR.. Herrick johnson, has called the
peril OF broadness that would empty
our souls of conviction and oul lives of
victory"
DIR. Briggs Reply.
At 3:15 o'clock DR.. Briggs arose to
reply to the opening of the prosecuting
committee and to protest against the
entertaining of the appeal by the gen.
eral assembly. He stated the question
and quoted the law which prohibits the
employment of professional counsel in
such cases, saying that, If permitted to
10 so, he would Rave employed such
professional counsel for the reason that
it was doubtful if he could present his
case as it should be done. This situa-
ton was one that was forced upon him
by the book of discipline, which made it
necessary for him to rise above personal
con siderations. and to appear as the
attorney for DR.. Briggs. The queS-
ton before the assembly was not, he
said, whether or not Dr.. Briggs teach
ings were proper, but whether or
not the appeal could be lawfully enter
tanned. The law of the case at this stage
forbade the consideration .of its merits,
and he expressed regret that the prose-
cution had not observed this law. The
same law constrained the commission
ers or judges not to consider the contro-
versieS in question at this time, but
simply to determine the legality of the
appeal. DR.. Briggs went OH to argue
that the form Of the appeal was incor-
rect and that there were many things in
it which must be removed before the
assembly could entertain 1t. He also
pointed out matters included in
the appeal which. he said rem
dered it invalid. He asserted in
Judgment of the presbytery In his case
was really declared by the moderator of
the New York presbytery on Dec. 80,
1892, and from that appeal should be
taken, if from any action of the preSby-
terry, and not from action on Jan. 9, 1898.
He was not to be exposed to the peril
that lay in possible change of compost
tion of the body i'll the interim: nor put
III jeopardy second time because of a
mistake by the court which tried him at
a date subs eQuent to that on which the
final judgment was really delivered. If
any man thought these objections were
puerile and technical, let him put him
self in his place. Why should he waive
any of his rights when the prosecution
was endeayoring to take
His Ecclesiastical Life?
The second ground upon which the
appellee oppO sed the entertaining of the
appeal was that 1t was well estab-
liShed principle of law that a public
prosecutor could not appeal from YER
dict of acquittal. Upon the question of
the standing of minister charged with
heresy. DR.. Briggs said there was no
course open but to remain In fellowship
with the church until deposed after
trial. A much more fundamental ques-
ton was at stake than any principle of
law or doctrine that had yet been dis
cussed. That was, whether the Presby-
terian church should be considered as
merely religious society or a church of
Jesus Christ. 1t was the civil law of
should be twice tried for the same
otfense. The New York presbytery,
under orders of general assembly,
tried DR.. Briggs for the crime of
heresy and acquitted him. Was the
Presbyt erian church ready to ignore or
violate that well settled principle, found
by centuries of observation and expert
ence to be essential to the well-belng of
the people, without good and sufficient
cause. 1t was true the church did not
punish a minister in his physical being,
but to depose minister, to deprive him
of his ecclesiastical life, was to lntiict a
punishment far more cruel than that
permitted in the civil courts. Dr.BriggS
then discussed the law of appeals. This,
he asserted, could be invoked only by
parties original to the case and az
grleved parties. The new book of dis
cipline did not contain the word
aggrieved, he admitted, but in spirit.
the right of appeal was con1ned
to those who were aggrieved.
Was prosecuting committee such
an aggrieved party as to warrant
it in appealing from an adverse judg-
ment. The committee had no right to
appel. and an appeal by such a COM