Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-05-25


snexncs 70 tos insnxsr1 s "a
~ vnen proven sn~S III pfi8ye oso no.
psopesiy r~psessot ths tonnAnens~i
uie"s ysco opassnos u tns pfesoy seh~"
snuscn
III nAscn ooocioes1 - foNo"s
Tour sppeianI - the spokesman OF
hunsiresss of shoosAnds u prscos t~sts tshs.
in ths nAme of the lac and ofu~t' ot
hssstainAti"nai hyAity. ot sesiP'a's
Psesspt ana btbsisai exampics w tue
naass ef the histn'c. offh.siox' esshxss'
sai. MISSIONARY brsneh of the eh"i,h'
t.ss'seeh this venerable court u bless the
chufrh and the Sosid. aud u exercise
ns a1thosity Ina . ef.sss :" monestoa.
~ Ia make every plea lof delay u
nssis'asnt out ~ ofder. Thus your hon
Able body wiii protect our eommunion
nom what onr u You number. Dr.
hersick Johnssn has ealied the peril of
bsoadness thst would empty our
s,uls 1t conviction and our lives of
vsetory.
,.,,- .,.i-..L n
.,S - En- o,.n,nc ., ,ss s....n,,n,
~ ~ ,-a -, -, 81.
s,a.,".a,, -, ~. -, -. - -
- ~, Th. a,.,sI,,' 49,. ,h..
'ti.' -. -, - h.,h
-, r.. a.. ,...t,n- -. -
bo, s.,a.s =, n,t Oh. s,.i ,.i,i1 ~.
L...y.,Ii, .,,.,,.,,sd
The law - the CASE AT this stage con
strained the commissioners or Judges
not u CONSIDER The eontrOverss-- IN que--
tlon AZ this time. out t. determine the
LEGALITY II The appeal
Iae nFst thing fo be decidcd Was
shcther ts~1srm of the appeal vas cor
rect not wh"thrr any matters eNist
which might Ius'ify the sustaining of
the appeal III there WAS any want ~
Orm or detail IN 'he appeal. the general
assembly could not lawfully take iuris
dicilon- Was the appeal then. Dr.
rrises asked. az appear from the maj
judgment 81 the presbytery of New
YORK The Interpretation "f the word
"heci"ion an the appeai meant either
redundancy. when marrei i's form. or
s'niethiHg in althtion Ia IN" nnai Iudg
ment IA which latter case, II was IN
snlid
In" language OF the appeal obviously
irelus!e'i something beside the hnal
Judgment of the presb! tery. Tor u re
'efrvd to actons anu DECISIONS oi the
pFeshs'ers; and until this ex'raneons
matter had been taken out of the appeal.
pr Briggs claimed the general assembly
couh not entertain II.
wh., ,,ri,w pr...cr,,,.
r .:,-, -, ,h. q.
'"S - -, - nv s',".' INA. .le
u,''' . e""'"'u n'''''i
:, '""" ;" - ''i '' ~
- i.' .n.,e" NaS n'uOi.
%,
le".r,' r. "Iole :. e"u'' oe ene'
.s ~. -; " "PP'.'d' =, =.
~ .s.'iI'a,. 49, s,a So,
~ ,''J,pp,, .nd s''id ~, f fiaw,,,,is III :, ".
t-.aled from. The decision 20 the prss
bytery. 10 dismiss the prosecution CON
mit'ec. formed 10 part az the final Iudg
ment and could not fhereiore tie ap-
pealcd from. might only he com
planned os. AND -. X the counsel. ad
vice and eShortatlons given 10y the pres
byfery; they were given IN It's episcopal
capacity and the only rclcf therofrom
was by appeal fo the synod of New York
Even II the presbytery had been III error
IN all these particulars. said Dr. Briggs. 1t
vas not his province 10 dsscuss that.
IL hal no hearing on the
case. IL was his duty. however.
To point out the Tact that
because they we're included IN the ap-
peal. ~ was invalid lie ohl"cted Ia the
APPEAL from the decision @! January y.
i-'s. "aen ms case was hnaiiy dispos'''i
"t by the New York fresiyiery on De
c"Inber ~. i,J- tie SHOULD u" pun IN
jeopardy because 81 mistake hy the
court which tried him AT a date suhse
quent to that on winch the hndl luG%
ment was really Delivered. III" argued
against 'he legality or an appeal from =
veriict "t ac1uittal as contrary To well
established pFincipie or law
III. Mild I,.inua,,on.
n, p,,,,,., ,,o- d;.,.,,ss.J N. Las, -
,,.s,is IA ~, .ss.,,,..t ,..,,,I1 ,'.. -
raleJ only 3, ,.r.;.. original o. ~.
80. ,,J ,,..,r,orc,I ,,,r,,s.' Tbs ,.,,.
h.nk ~ di-r,nline did mo-, contain m.
word aggrieyc,l. he admitted. hut in
spirit the right Of appeal was confined
TO those vi no were Bcgricvcd
The pros,cuting committee hal no
righ. 20 appeal. and an appeal 10y such
a committee could no, be entcrtaiaed 10y
the general assembly without a viola
iinn % ali church law and precedent.
To entertain such an appeal would h..
'r the assembly 20 enter into conflict
with all rrrc~slence. and perpetuste a
wrou, y hirh nn court iu the land would
refu-.. L. ri.ht. When did II ever oc.
eur that the public prosecutor vas en-
titled u appeal because. an his opinion.
q najurit, ~ the penpl. were not salts
hol with the verdict
- It vas q common mistake to say
that the Presbyterian church was 70
apon-ihi~ for al doctrines - it's minis
ter Tho. Presbyterian church was ~