Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-26

Inc assembly held night session last night
and what is called 1.-The hearing of the parties
was finished. That is, Mr.. McCook closed the
formal argument on the question whether the
appeal should be entertained. At the close Of
his address the assembly voted to set aside four
hours for discussion of the question by men,
bers of the assembly. When Mr.. McCook took
the platform to resume his argument he spoke
a few moments without reading from his brief
to refer TO one or two matters which had arisen
in the Course of Prof. Briggs argument
AT the close of his argument the appellee
gave Us declaration OF his faith The con-
fession of faith by tie appellee at the close of
his plea NAV or may not be fully in accord with
terrain Church One point should be noted in
1t, however
He has modified his answer to the questions
OF the directors of the Union Seminary, for
torlcal fncts-a modification sufficiently broad
10 allow Of acceptance by even who be-
heves that Jonah OF Ruth or Esther or Job, or
all OF them, are unhistorical characters
But II any event, the appellee confession Is
no stronger than that which he made just
before delivering the Inaugural address, So
That the question remains as it did before this
new statement was today again altered
I'm the appellee's judgment his inaugural Is
fully In accord with the confession. The ques-
tlCn Tor thlS court NnallY TO decide Is Nucluer
or not the two can be in full accord
The appellee referred sharply to the fact that
on page of the record the appellants had
omitted the series of questions and answers IN
Guided in the preamble TO the resolution stars
were placed in the recoid 10 indicate an omis-
SION, rs should always be done when an extract
Is not full and complete.
IAN examination Of the page viii show any
candid man that rything covering the matter
at issue is given there and given IN fullness.
The matter was introduced not TO tell anything
respecting Dr. Briggs soundness or unsound-
ness, nor even to tell anything that DIR. Briggs
had said. but solely and only to prove that an
attempt was made to dismiss the case because
of statements made by DIR. Briggs. not on the
floor OF the presbvtery. not in response to
queries offered by the presbytery. but made to
a body of gentlemen. who. in their corporate
capacity bore no direct relations to the presby-
terry.
Dr. BRIGGS NEW DECLARATIONS.
with reference to the confession or declara-
ton, Us made today, was very glad to hear it.
have heard il in somewhat similar forms on
other occasions. But those categorical answers
were given and we're replied to after the in
nugural adde's had been delivered. but before
the proceedings in the New York presbytery
were begun
During the first trial declarations of princi-
PIES were male and the case was dismissed
Keep in mind the Only thing that these pro-
ceedings are based upon is the inaugural adj
dress.
IF any one has the volume in his possession
and will look at the preface of the third edition
of DIR. Briggs innug ural address, which bears
imprint o. date of November ), 1891. the day
immediately following the first trial in presby-
tery-the dav after the case had been dismissed
he will find these words:
~ have seen nothing in the hostile criticism
to lead me TO make any change whatever either
in the matter or the form of the address. But
il seems To ME wise to republish the address in
n second edition under my own responsibility,
with some additional notes and explanations
'.ihis third edition contains the charges
made against me before the presbytery Of New
- York October and Iny answers thereto OF
November A.
The fourth edition of the inaugural. which is
dated III the following year. contains these
same words.
The charges are based upon the inaugural
address Only. and the inaugural address. you
see by the preface in tbs succeeding editions.
stands not retracted. TO. Observation-Disclosures as
II was when delivered"
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT.
Mr. McCooh then took up his brief and re-
ferrel again to the constitution of the church.
which provided for appeals in questions in
volvins r,atters of doctrine without DENYING
the right o. appeal in case either of acquittal
or conviction. The constitution of the church
did not regard acquitial in lower Judi
catory rs a completion Of the case. This right
of appeal had been exercised under the old
book well as the new, appeal direct from
the presbytery TO the assembly being allowed
by the Book of discipline regular. The
Book of Discipline said that appeals are to be
taken generally 10 the judicatory immediately
superior. How could the synod be ignored or
sighted BY Withholding from il n matter on
which il could not make q final decision? In
no other way could the synod of New York
exert SO large an influence IN determining this
matter. for If the appeal was entertained now
by the assembly the members of the synod
wOul1 not be debarred from voting on it.
When the overtures relating to the revision of
the faith were sent down by the assembly thew
were sent to the presby teries ard not to the
synods- The replies we're sent back directly to
the assembly. This was in accordance
with the constitution. and no one would
claim that the dignity of the synod was
sssailed by such a course. The case had never
been before the synod of New York That
synod bad never assumed jurisdiction of the
case. There had been received by il GER
tain complaints. but these complaints were not
In the judicial case There no sigh: there
fore. intended or otherwise, in bringing the case
directly to the assembly.
IL this court should in its judgment think this
case should go to the synod the first step would
be to entertain the appeal When they had
voted TO entertain the appeal then they could
consider this question Of appeal The consti-
tuition. he said. made it mandatory upon the
general assembly to receive complaints and
appeals affecting matters of doctrine The
constitution placed especial responsibility upon
the general assembly in all matters affecting
doctrine. discipline, peace, purity and prosper
ity. The constitution had left it open inten-
tionally. doubtless. to bring all such matters
directly before the assembly
Mr.. McCOok said the uniform practice
of the general assembly had been to receive sp-
peals coming to 1T without going to the
synod If good reasons were adduced When
the synod of Virginia, in 1918, csnsured The
presbytery of Lexington for allowing the appeal
OF Rev. Mr.. Bourne to go to the assembly the
assembly refused TO approve the records of the
synod. He argued tina. the precedenss showed
that a case involving doctrine could not be sent
down by the assembly to the synod II this
case should be referred to the synod OF New
York they might be met with the technical OBJ
lection that notice Of appeal had not been
eiven within the ten days required Then the
6nal settlement of the case might be deferred
for two years The assembly had never re-
fused to entertain an appeal where good reasons
were shown.
WHY II SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED.
There were special reasons why the appeal
should be entertained without going first to the
synod The appeal related to doctrines of vital
importance. The attempt TO make it appear
that these questions were unimportant and I'M
essential had signaliy failed They were ques-
lions considered of vital Importance bv all