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

DR.. Birch spoke Of the spirit Of
criticism which under the name of Christian
scholarship threatened to sweep away the one
foundation upon which they had built their
Christian homes, and putting their Christian
faith In Peril. They were told, he said that an
APPEAL from verdict of acquittal was out Of
order. He spoke of the presbytery having
raised the banner of rebellion. The acquittal
he said, was no acquittal at all. with the quali-
hcatlons with which it was accompanied.
referring to the citation from the Craighead
case that no man can be convicted of heresy by
implication or inference, DIR. Birch said the
Cralghead case and this were not analogous
The Apostle Paul, he said. had condemned the
heretical Jews scores OF times by clear logical
differences. The use made OF the quotation
from the Craighead case was, he said an eva
sion, what the lawyers called q plea Of avoid
ance.
DON'T INDoRsE BRIGGs' OPINIONS.
OF those who had supported DR.. Briggs, both
in press and pulpit, he believed not one in
hundred would subscribe to the inaugural ad-
dress, for they believed it contained fuuda-
mental errors. For this reason they wanted the
case brought before the assembly.
Some had assumed that the persistence of the
prosecution was an exhibition of willful disre-
gard Of the peace Of the church and of religious
spirit.
The interest of the appellee in this case was
this committee represented
By refusing the right OF appeal to the prose-
cution they would permit the presbytery of
New York, ex-cathedra, to determine grave ques-
tons of doctrine for the whole church. They
were to settle these questions, not for them
selves alone. but for all American Presbyterians
both now and for some years to come He
said the committee had sought earnestly to do
their duty. They might have escaped much
unpleasant criticism by abandoning the case
baya tot bo
The appellant as the spokesman OF hundreds
OF thousands of Presbyterians in the name Of
law and order. in the name of all that was
sacred in the Presbyterian Church. besought
this venerable court to bless the church and
the world, to exercise its authority in q crisis
so momentous as to make every plea for q
delay Of judgment entirely out OF order.
He appealed to them to save the church from
what DIR. Herrick johnson described as a peril
Of broadness that would empty our souls Of
conviction and our lives OF victory.
DR.. Birch finished at ten minutes past three
having used only half hour Of the hour allotted
| him.
DIR. BRIGGS BEGINS HIS ARGUMENT.
DR.. Briggs then came forward and took his
place on the little platform where DIR. Birch
had stood.
! He said he appeared to resist the entertain
ment Of the appeal. The Book of Discipline,
he said, made him the appellee. 1t was incum-
bent upon him to defend the action of the New
York presbytery. He was not allowed to en-
| ploy counsel.
| He was privileged only to ask some member
| OF the judicatory to represent him. Had he
been permitted to employ counsel he would
have done so, or if he could have engaged
some member Of the judicatory in time for that
| person to master all the details OF the case he
would have me SO. He said that he appeared
under great disadvantages. he might suffer
on account of personal hostility, as it was diff
cult for them to separate DIR. Briggs. the appel
lee, from DIR. Briggs. the attorney. He asked
them to hear him not as DIR. Briggs, but as
counsel for DIR. Briggs.
NOT THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL.
| The consideration Of the merits of the appeal
he said. was not lawful until it had been decided
to entertain the appeal. He regretted that the
appellant disobeyed this rule of practice.
The grounds Of the appeal had been read. but
not that the court might consider their merits
at this time. He made an earnest appeal
to them as his judges, to distinguish now be-
tween the form and the matter. They had now
to consider only the form OF the appeal. They
had to determine the preliminary questions.
viz: whether the appeal was from a proper
| final Judgment; whether the appellants were
proper parties. and whether the assembly could
take jurisdiction of the case. II they decided
on any of these questions that the appeal was
not proper they had nothing to do whatever
with the merits OF the case.
The first question was how far is the appeal
against final Judgment. The Book Of Disci-
| pline said appeals must be from final judy
ments. The title of the appeal read "from the
decision and final Judgment of the presby-
terry Of New York 1t appeared to be some
| thing more than appeal from a final judg
ment and therefore was invalid. In the body
of the appeal the language was 'from the afore-
said action, decision and final Judgment" So
far as it was an appeal from anything more
than a final judgment" it was unlawful
If the presbytoyy Of New York deemed it wise
to combine with its final judgment other decis-
ions and advice, such decisions and advice could
not be regarded as part OF the final judgment,
and therefore was not subject to appeal. The
only judgment was acquittal.
1t was manifest that much Of the appeal was
from those actions and utterances Of the pres
bytery, from which no appeal could be taken
IRRELEVANT MATTER.
Much, therefore, in the appeal was irrelevant,
and should not be considered at all The reser-
walton Of approval was not part Of the final
judgment. 1t could not be appealed from. but
only complained of. The counsel, ad-
vice and e1hortation in the utterances of
the New York presbytery might be
right or wrong, but it formed no
part of the judgment Possibly the presbytery
committed error in all these decisions and
of that question. Assuming that they were
full Of error they had nothing to do with the
question brought here.
NOT THE LEGAL VERDICT.
The decision Of the presbytery, he said, had
been announced by the moderator when the
vote was taken as an acquittal. This was the
vote Of December 80. The appeal seemed to
be taken from the irrelevant matters which
hal been drawn up by committee of
the presbytery and adopted January
8. That WAS not the vote of the
presbytery acquitting DIR. Briggs. The appel
| lants took their appeal from action not contem-
plated in the vote of December 80. If the de-
PENDANT waived this technical objection how
could he be assured that he would be protected
by the assembly in his other rights? Why
should the appellee waive his rights
when the appellants were seeking
to deprive him of his ecclesiastical life. They
could not legally entertain the appeal until all
this irrelevant matter was removed from the
appeal.
DIR. Briggs second line Of argument was that
it was unlawful for party claiming to be
public prosecutor to appeal against q verdict Of
acquittal.
He referred to the definition of the heresy in
the Book of Discipline errors that strike at
the vitas of religion, and are industriously cir
culated. He discussed the nature of heresy as
ofense, calling attention to its gravity in the
eyes of churchmen in all times. He referred
to the severe punishments formerly inflicted on
heretics In this country an ecclesiastic judg-
ment could not deprive man of his property,