Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-05-25
AL HE HAD ASKED,


expression.
The form in which the final Judgment Of
tle PreSbytery was returned gives the I'M
p.essiOn that the alleged errors of Prof.
Briggs were unimportant and that no eS-
seatsal doctrine had been contradtcted.
- ere has been a tendency TO minimize the
n force of tue indictment. The errors
arged are fundamental The charges re-
ted:
rirst-To the question as TO the supreme
only authority in matters OF faith and
actice.
econd-To the question as to the iner-
;y or truthfulness Of the inspired Word
iOd.
hird-To the historical validity Of the
Testament.
urth-As 10 the fulfilment of Messi-
i predictiOn-a question of supreme I'M
p( .nce in its bearing upon the view
" n is taken of truthfulnesS of scripture
AZ T the truthfulneSs OF God.
h-And lastly, there is the doctrine
Of emption concerning which 1t has
6e alleged that Prof. Briggs teachings
ha ,een especially erroneous and hurt
full out which could only be partially tried
in the lower court.
HEREIsA SERIES OF ERRORS
covering the whole fundamental structure
OF Ohr faith Itis question purely doc
triahl. aud therefore of universal import
ance so far as PresbyterianiSm is con-
cerued IL can finally be settled by no
Presbytery or Synod, but requires the de-
cisiOn OF the Presbyterian Church In It's
higheS court
inreply to the argument that an appeal
cannot De, taken from verdict OF ecquIttal,
DR.. Bircl said that this was equivalent TO
a claim t9at part of the cnurch was
greater than the whole.
With all respect to the accused in the
the case, said Dr. Birch, am ready to say
that his personal interest is nothing In
comparison TO the interest of the Church
in whose name be has been teaching. The
question, what is really Presbyterian
doctrine, is 10 be answered, not for our
selves alone, but for all American Presby-
terians. both now aud for some years 70
come and must be answered by the whole
Church.
At 3:15 o. m. DR.. Briggs arose TO re-
Div 70 rhe opening of the Prosecuting
Committee and TO protest against the
entertaining Of the appeal by the Gen
eral Assembly.
The question before the Assembly was
not. he said, whether or not DR.. Briggs's
teachings wete proper, but whether or not
the appeal
COULD BEl LAWFULLY ENTERTAINED.
The law Of the case at this stage forbade
the consideration OF its merits, and be ex-
pressed regret that the prosecution had not
observed this law.
The same laws constrained the commits
sioners or Judges not 10 consider the con-
troyersies in question at this time, but
simply 70 determine the legality OF the ap-
peal.
Dr. Briggs went on to argue that the
form of the appeal was incorrect and that
there were maay things in il which must
be removed, before the General Assembly
could entertain II. He also pointed out
matters included in the appeal which he
said renderd ID il invalid.
DR. Briggs asserted, in the next place,
that the tindl Judgment Of the Pres eS0ytery
in his case was really declared by the Mod
orator Of tho New Y ork Presbytery on De-
cemoe 30, 1892, and from that the appeal
should Do taken, il from any action OF the
Presb bytery, hnd net from action taken on
January 9. 1898. Hewas not TO be exposed
20 the peril that Law in possible change Of
composition of the body in the interim. nor
put in Jeopardy N a second time because Of \
mistake 0y th e court which tried him at a
date subsequent 70 hat on which the final
Judgment was Ally delivered. IF any
man thought these o 1lectiUns were puerile
and technical. let hlm put himself IN my
place Why should ne waive any OF his
rights when THE prosecution were endeav-
oriug TO take his ecclesiastical lifeln
The second ground upon which DR..
Briggs Opposedlthe entertaining of the ap-
peal, was that il was u well established
principle of la3 that a public prosecutor
could not appeal from
VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.
Upon the question oil the standing Of a
minister charged with heresy, DIR. Briggs
said there was no course open but 10 re-
main in fellowship with the church until
deposed after trihl
A much more fundamental question was
at stake, said DR.. BriggE than any princi-
pie Of law or dO9trine hat had yet been
discussed. That fTas whether the Presby-
terian Church shPuld oe considered as a
merely voluntary religious society or q
Church Of Jesus Christ. 1t was the civil
law OF the land. helsaid, that no man should
be twice tried for khe sane offence The
New York PreSbytery, under orders of the
General Assembly, tried DR.. Briggs for the
crime of heresy and acquitted him. Was
the Pres oyterian CD 4urch ready to ignore or
violate that well settled principle found by
centuries Of Observation AMI experience to
be essential 70 the we'll being Of the people,
without good and sultnSient cause.
Dr. Briggs then discussed the law Of ap-
peals. This he asserted could be invoked
only BY parties original 70 tie case and ag-
grieved parties. IL Ft were lawful 10 ap-
peal every case Of doctrine and law brought
before ths court Of the PresbEtery,it could
compel the General Assembly 10 finally de-
termine all these legal questions. II this
appeal should be sustained il would be-
come an unfortunate precedent which
would be followed byi public prosecutors
hereafter. who would IN many cases, if not
in most cases, magnify theit onice and
bring difference of opihion before
Tx SUPREME COURT OF TIE CHURCH
and thus establish a new and easy way for
ambitious litlgants to aecure authoritative
decisions OF the General Assembly in many
matters Of faith and morals, Of life and
work, which were now regarded as legiti-
mate matters Of private opinions and thus
imperil the constitution by an unending
series OF hereSy trials and result in
changes in the doctrine and law of the
Presbyterian Church.
il was possible that q majority of the
General Assembly might make an uncon-
stitutiOnal decision, and that there might
be a series Of decisions OF questions OF doc
trine and morals in CONFIRMATION of the
doctrinal and ecclesiastical staDdards.
What course should synod. or presby-
terry, or 3 minister pursue in such easel
They might be Justified in saying. 1--WE re-
fuse 10 submit to the decisions Of this un-
righteous majority. We shall continue to
maintain our constitutional rights. In the
next heresy trial we look for a righteous
verdict
Unless the highest court OF the Assembly
should act in strict accordance with the
forms Of laws and upon the constitution OF