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

HhSh' SOAMENCEh
assembly is composed Of more than 500 men,
bers from all parts Of the United States. Is il
likely that SO numerous q body will be a
more equitable court than the presby-
terry Of New York. Let any one con-
| slider the situation Of affairs in the Pres
byterian Church since the process was begun
against DR.. Briggs and honestly ask whether the
general assembly is likely to be in a more Judi
cial frame of mind than the presbytery Of New
York. III the general assembly should enter
tain this appeal it would be necessary to con-
slider the merits Of the case with the utmost
care, with evident impartiality, with entire
freedom from party prejudice and with un-
wearied patience for several weeks, or you
could not win public confidence in your justice,
| or public reepect for your decision. If YOU
override all the provision of the constitution
and the maxims of civil law, the usages Of civil
and ecclesiastical courts in order to entertain
an appeal and then rush to hasty decision,
you will strike deadly blow at the constitu-
ton and the discipline Of the Presbyterian
Church
A Review OF the Case.
The presbytery Of Ne,c York rendered its
rerdict Of acquittdl notwithstanding Gerry great
pressure upon its members to rote for conric-
tion. 1t is necessary briefly to review the case.
January 20, 1891, DR.. Briggs delivered his in
augural address on the authority of Holy Scrip
ture in the chapel of the Union Theological
Seminary, New York. A garbIed outline of
that address was published in many of the re-
ligious and secular newspapers. and public
opinion was excited against it before the ad-
dress was published.
April IL, 1891 on motion Of Dr. Birch, by
authority Of the presbytery Of New York, the
moderator, DIR. Shearer, appointed committee
to consider the inaugural address and to re-
port at the meeting in May. This action was
taken against DIR. Briggs in his absence He
was confined to his house by illness. He had
no warning of the proposed motion. This ac-
ton was therefore in violation of the law of the
church that no discussion ought to be allowed
involving the character Of an absent person in
his absence" Against this action Of the pres
bytery DR.. Briggs protested at the meeting in
May, that it was unlawful and without prece-
dent. At the same meeting the majority of
the committee reported, recommending ..that
the presbytery enter at once upon the judicial
investigation Of the CASE
This report was adopted and a committee
was appointed by the moderator, Dr. Shearer.
consisting Of the majority Of the former COM
mittee. to ARRANGE and prepare the necessary
proceedings appropriate in the case of DR.
Briggs. Against this action DR.. Briggs gave
notice Of protest and complaint to synod. but
subsequently withdrew this complaint in order
that there might be no delay in the advance
toward judicial proceedings. Thus far the
presbytery of New York acted unfairly toward
the defendant. 1t gave him no opportunity to
explain his inaugural address or OF giving salts
faction to the presbytery.
THE CATEGORICAL QUESTIONS.
The directors Of the Union Theological Semi
nary undertook to satisfy themselves and to
remove the public prejudice by securing from
Dr. Briggs categorical answers to eight ques-
tions embracing the chief points ut issue. This
was published by the authority Of the directors.
But the general Assembly at Detroit in Nav,
1881, notwithstanding these categorical
answers. undertook to veto the transfer of
DR.. Briggs to the chair of biblical theology.
Two OF the prosecutors took part in the act of
veto and used their personal influence in its
behalf and then returned to New York and.
with the other members of the committee ap,
pointed to prepare the necessary proceedings.
blossomed out into prosecuting COMMITTEES
by their own inherent energy.
Under the increased impetus of the action of
the general assembly OF Detroit, the presbyterv
suffered them to table charges against DR..
Briggs October 5, 1891, and cited him to ap-
pear and plead to them. They refused to dis
miss the case. On November 4, 1891 he ap-
peared and filed objections against 1.-The sutfi-
cheney OF the charges and specifications in form
ana legal effect" The presbytery thereupon
dismissed the case against him by a veto of "a
to 80. Up to this dismissal in every vote the
presbytery had been adverse to the defendant
the dismissal was made after hearing his
demurrer, notwithstanding the veto of the
general assembly and the previous adverse
votes OF the presbytery.
In April, 1892. the adverse influence in the
presbytery against Or. Briggs reasserued itself
IN the vote which sent to the general assembly
at Portland four members of the committee
which had been prosecuting him and eight
other friends of the prosecution out Of a total
OF fourteen commissioner. The general