Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-25

process naO Deen carried on In the forms OF
law. according to the constitution, and if in a
constitutional way DR.. Briggs had been con-
demned, he would have submitted to the law
In its constitutional application to his case.
But can you ask him to submit to any illegal
procedure. or to unconstitutional action? The
general assembly may 20 on and by a majority
vote Override all the safeguards Of the consti-
tuition and do unprecedented wrong to the de-
PENDANT, his presbytery and his synod, and con-
demn hls views as errors. But would those who
are condemned by SO unrighteous procedure re-
sspect it or obey it? II they refuse obedience
how can you compel them to obey? You have
no other power than moral power. II you be-
come immoral In your actions you destroy your
moral power and it becomes worse than inop-
erative The appellants say that 1.-The delay In
reaching an ultimate decision through an sp-
peal BY way Of the synod could not be less
than year, during which the character Of in
structlon given our candidates for the gospel
WHAT THE EFFECT worLD BE.
But suppose that the appellants should win
their case and you should condemn the in
augural as containing hurtful errors, would
that condemnation affect the character Of the
instruction given to candidates for the min
istry? Who believes that it would?
The only effect OF the adverse action taken
hitherto has been to call the defendant to the
port Of host Of friends all over the land in de-
Tense Of the rights Of scholarship and opinion.
II this general assembly should overcome all
the right OF the defendant and do him the
wrong of reversing his acquittal by the
presbytery OF New York. is there any
likelihood that the defendant would yield
his opinions! Do you suppose that DR..
Briggs would cease his teachings on the
mooted questions? Would candidates for the
ministry cease to attend upon his instructions?
You know well enough that none of these things
could happen. Your decision would be a
trufen, tui'nen. 1t could have no other effect
than to call liberal men to arms in q life and
death struggle for truth and right.
II, on the other hand you should send this
case where 1t belongs. to the synod Of New
York. and then in the regular course of pro-
cedure within the limits Of our constitution,
and with the guarding Of all rights. the supreme
court should eventually condemn DR., Briggs
and exclude him from the ministry of the Pres
byterian Church in the United States Of Amer
lea, the defendant would acquiesce in the re-
suit and would seek reordinatior by some other
church of Jesus Christ. What matters it il it
take another year? The Church OF Scotland
took fifteen years to decide the case Of Prof.
Simson.
Far better that you should take many years
In tho thorough sitting of this case than violate
law and order and equi ty and confront revo-
luton and q religious war.
Inc defendant agrees to the principle SO far
as he is concerned: Fiat justitia, ruat CO.
elum.'
But he is not willing that the coelun OF the
presbyterian Church should fall in the inter-
ests OF injustice and wrong. He will do his
utmost to prevent such a calamity.
The Question OF Doctrine.
The fourth reason presented by the ap-
pellants for leaping tine synod Is: believing
that special responsibility rests upon the gem
eral assembly, which is charged with the duty Of
deciding in all controversies respecting doc
trine. OF reproving. warning or bearing testl-
mony against error in doctrine in any church.
presbytery or synod, and in cases that affect or
concern the promotion OF truth and holiness
through all the churches under its care"
The general assembly has special RESPONSE
bility as to these matters when they are brought
before the general assembly in a legal manner.
But so have the synod and the presbyteries
each in their order special responsibility for
those matters within their respective bounds
Such responsibility rises grdddtim and cannot
be assumed per salem. 1t il not for the gen.
eral assembly to usurp that special response
bility which belongs to the synod Of New York.
The special responsibility OF the general assem-
bly, begins when the synod of New York has
given over the responsibility to the general as
sembiy in the legal forms OF review, reference,
complaint or appeal, based on the decisions OF
the synod The special responsibility Of the
general assembly does not begin until the synod
has exhausted its special responsibility.
The fallacy Of the whole prosecution is
wrapped up in their opinion that the general
assembly has the right Of determining finally
all questions of doctrine.
The Presbyterian Church is a constitutional
church in which all its representative bodies
have their duties specified and restricted. The
general assembly is no more omnipotent in the
Presbyterian Church than the Congress Of the
United States is in the affairs OF the nation.
POWERS OF THE ASSEMBLY.
The general assembly has the authority to
act under the constitution, in the forms Of the
constitution. and to determine all constitution ii
questions, but no others. 1t may determine
all doctrinal questions, SO far as they be-
long to the system of doctrine taught
in the Westminster confession, but not
step further. The general assembly has
no authority to determine questions of doc
trine which are beyond the range OF the def
uitions OF the Westminster confession. II the
general assembly should do this it would vio-
late the constitution. The constitution pre-
scribes a way in which the Presbyterian Church
NAV change Its doctrinal system whether by
addition or subtraction, or by transformation.
- ~