The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-05-26

wrongs, for incuring so great per1is and es-
tsblishing such hurtfui precedents. de
eaid:
IL they want TO promote ruin in the church
and bring about chaos. surely they should have
half hour TO describe. The members of this
committee say that In continuing TO prosecute
the defendant after ne mas been acquitted tney
has been known to the church ever. since the
days OF Job: They say that they represent the
claim they ought TO wait until they secure recog-
milton from that synod and get commission
from 1t. Why should the case OF Dr. Briggs De
made so prominent and pushed to the front as
the most prominent ecciesiastical discussion III
The closing decade of the nineteenth century,
They say IL Is a case or vital Importance.
think they exaggerate It's Importance, and have
always thought so.
AIRES DIR. Briggs yielded for q motion
10 adjourn. having then occupied total or
three hours'and ffty-two minutes proceed
Ing which number OF snnouncementsw were
made.
After recess DIR. Briggs spoke extempo-
raneously until the end OF his address de
rallied the attention OF the assembly to the
stars at the bottom of Page In the brief OF
the prosecutors Pney were not stars OF
glory he said, but stars of shame, for they
indicated an omission which should not
have been made. What right had these
appellants to omit such matters as they
pleased from an Official or semi.othcial doc
nmentf DIR. Briggs asked this question
with some feeling. as II he felt that an at
tempt had been made to strengthen the case
of bis opponents by emitting something
in his behalf He then supplied
the omitted part which consisted of the
eight questions put TO DR.. Briggs to test his
faith and his answers TO them. DE wished.
no said. to make an explicit denial of the
charge that he had preached doctrines
against the fundamental doctrines of the
church. Il affirm that believe" he said.
turning with outstretched hands TO the
audience, "the Holy Scriptures to be tho
word of God" He affirmed his faith hon.
estly and npriabtly every three years in
making tho reaffrmation of faith which
was required of him by the Union Theolog-
ical Seminary. he affirmed that be held TO
the whole doctrine taught In the first chap
ter of the Westminster Confession Any
thing he might have said that might con-
tiIct with these statements was due TO mis-
interpretations but he charged no one
with Misunderstanding him wlllfuIly.
Dr. Briggs closed with an appeal. touched
with suggestion of patbos that the case
might 60 70 tho Synod OF New YORK. III
that were done he would aid In the full
solution of the case. and then, If IL were
sent back To the next General Assent bly,, he
would abide by its decision, whatever 1t
might be. He regretted If he had said any
thing tnet had caused trouble In the
church. No one regretted more than be
did. He had taught for twenty years at
the Union Theological Seminary. he SAID,
appealingly. almost pathetically. Only
ogy had taught longer than he, only two
had been the instructors of more ministers
OF the church than he. OF all persons that
had been taught by him, he challenged any
OF them TO say that he had taught them
any thing that had Interfered with the true
discharge of their holy duties.
DIR. Briggs concluded HIS address at $40
o'clock. having spoken four hours and
twenty seven minutes In eli. at chTee differ
ent sittings of the court. AS he took his
seat wave of applause ran over the rear
OF the church which evoked an indignant
rebuke from the moderator. who said he
hoped that none of the commissioners sit
ing as judges had so far forgotten them
selves as to show by their applause q
prejudice favor of one side of q case be-
fore hearing all the argument And If
the galleries." he continued. shall attempt
10 interfere with influence this high
court by unseemly outbreaks Will
order them cleared and have the court con-
tInue it's sittings with closed doors"
Colonel McCook's Closing Argument.
After an interview of five minutes Col
J. j. McCook began the closing argument
for the prosecuting committee. in support
of the recommendation that the appeal be
entertained. Almost at the opening DE-.
Briggs interrupted Colonel MoCook to cor
rect what he claimed was mistake made
by the latter. when he said that the ap-
peilant (Briggs) had stated that the appeal
was not taken In time.
Dc. Briggs-I did not say that. i admit
that the appeal was taken in time.
Colonel McCook-That is perfectly salts
factory. The matter was of trifiing mo-
ment In any event and is practically so in
view of the admission just made.
A few minutes later, after quoting from q
letter written by DE-. Briggs TO Dr. Birch.
In which he declined TO meet the proseeut-
ing committee before any proceedings were
had under their appointment. DR.. Briggs
arose and said: MAY / ask o question:
Colonel McCook-You may interrupt me
rs often as you please.
Moderator Craig-Dr. Briggs, l allowed
you to speak four and q half hours without
interruption.
DR.. Brigss-I wanted to correct mis-
statement.
Moderator Craig-Colonel McCook heard
you throughout without objection. although
he might have challenged many of your
statements. Now. let him 40 on In the
same way. That 10 only fair and proper
Dr. Briggs-It is understood then. that
do not consent to the Incorporation of any
misstatement.
Moderator Craig-Certainly. And 1 do
not suppose that Colonel McCook gave his
assent to o score Of things you said, but he
bore them we'll Colonel McCook will pro-
coed.
In beginning his argument Colonel No
Cook asserted that all the preliminary
questions involved in the case were res
adjudicata. having been discussed and de-
termined by the General Assem bly, of 1892
Speaking to DR.. Briggs claim that the
matter appealed from by the prosecuting
committee was not q final Judgment of the
presby terry. Colonel McCook said: IF that
be so. then Prof. Briggs has not been ac-
Quilted of the charge brought against MN"
The history of the case in it's various
stages was reoited by Colonel McCook and
she regularity of the several steps flrmly
maintained. Colonel McCook said:
Great weight has been given to a technical
question raised In the interest of the appellee.
aud OF delay based upon o clause contained In
the fifth amendment to the Constitution OF the
United states. which says: "Nor shall any per-
son be subject for the Same offsnse to be twice
put In jeopardy OF life or limb" 1t has been
claimed that this constitutional provision pre-
vents an appea! from the final judgment OF the
Presbytery OF New York in this case. and that
such an appeal would place the appellee's "eccle-
siastical life' in jeopardy second time. This
IL somewhat ingenious. but the tnappro-
pirate use OF the term "ecclesiastical
life" seems to have confused the minds
proceedings under the Book of Discipline. These
are not criminal proceedings involving peril TO
the life or limb OF the appellee They are pro-
ceedings to enforce q contract. or rather 10 de-
termine whether the contract has been main
tanned In all its integrity. II it should be shown
that the appellee has not maintained the con-
tract In all Its integrity. the loss of his "ecclesi
astical life" would mean simply the loss of the
benefits which he at one time enjoyed under the
contract which he had broken. The constitu-
tional provision was mainly designed to prevent
second punishment for the same crime or mis-
demeanor. Where, as In this case. no punishment
has been inflicted upon the appellee, the consti-
trtional provision 10 not to be invoked.
At 1880, after having spoken an hour and