The Carbon advocate. [volume] (Lehighton, Pa.) 1872-1924, 1893-05-27
DR. BRIGGS ARGUMENT
Urging the Rejection Of the Prose-
Outors' Appeal.
MAJoR1T1Es OPPOSED TO CHANGES

4
No Man should be Tried Twice for the
same Onense-The Professor Hints Of an
Independent church should the Assem-
bly, Ignore the sacred Rights Of Man"
WASHINGTON. May 25.--In anticipation
Of the discussion on the Briggs case, long
before the hour Of opening the proceedings
yesterday every bit of available seating
and standing room was occupied. The
pressure for admittRnce was terrific. Many
prominent people were in attendance, but
In order to enable others 90 attend one Of
the sessions some additional regulations
governing admittance TO the church mag
be adopted
Rev. George d. Baker, chairman, re-
ported that the judicial committee unani-
mously recommended that the prosecuting
committee he allowed one hour to open its
case; that five hours be given TO Professor
Briggs, and that the committee be given
two hours in which to close, to be extended,
n desired, to four hours
Rev DR.. W. r. Birch chairman Of the
prosecuting committee then opened an
elaborate argument, in which occurred
these passages
1--WE are here TO invoke this supreme
court TO put am end TO the dissension and
disputation which the New York presby-
terry vainly endeavored to silence, first by
the dismissal Of the case against DR.
Briggs, and second, by the acquittal Of
Dr. Briggs, qualifying both the dismissal
and the acquttal by the positive dis
elaimerof any approval Of the oontroverted
statements Of the inaugural address as to
critical or theological views aud manner Of
expression.
"The form in which the final Judgment
Of tho presbytery was returned gives the
Impression that the alleged errors Of Pro
fessor Briggs were unimportant, and that
no essential doctrine had been contra
dieted. There has been a tendency to min
/ imiEe the full force Of the indictm eut
Here Is a series of errors covering the
whole fundamental structure Of our faith.
/ II is a question purely doctrinal and there.
| fore Of universal Importance so far ss
/ Presbyterianism is concerned 1t can be
| finally settled by no presbytery or synod,
| but requires the decision Of the pres bytery
and church in its highest court"
In reply to the argument that an appeal
oannot be taken from a verdict Of acquittal,
! DR.. Birch said that this was equivalent to
\ a claim that part Of the church was
/ greater than the whole
At 8l6 O'Clock DR. Briggs arose to reply
to the opening Of the prosecuting commit
tee The question before the assembly
was not, he said whether or not DR.. Briggs
teachings were proper, but whether or not
the appeal could be!lawfully entertained.
The law Of the case at this stage forbade
the consideration Of its merits, and he ex.
pressed regret that the prosecution had
not observed this law.
NN-ts- Il NN..N H.
ment OF the presbytery in the case was
really declared by the moderator of the
New York presbytery on Dec 30, 1892, and
from that appeal should be taken if from
any action Of the presbytery, and not from
action on Jan. 9, 1873 He was not to b,
exposed to the peril that lay in a possible
change of the composition Of the body IN
the interim; nor put in jeopardy a second
time because Of mistake by the court
which tried him at date subsequent t.
that on which the final judgment wa,
really delivered.
Upon the question Of the standing of 9
man charged with the crime of heresy DR..
Briggs, quoted, sarcastically, the expires
Aion Of a member Of the assembly used in
an article he had written to prepare hi,
brethren for considering this case in &
Christian and judicial frame of mind, that
# any man found himself teaching view,
In opposition to those Of a majority of tn,
Presbyterian church, he was in honol
bound to leave the church. This was moi
q question Of majority, but of law and oI
right. Any attempt of a majority of th,
church to exact from brother, a ministe
or teacher anything more than what wa
required by the constitutional standard
might be good club law, he said but it WA
not good ecclesiastical law.
MajoritieS had always been opposed t,
change or improvement, and TO enforo
their rule was to make it impossible fol
, the church to reotify error. For a Pres
byterian minister, therefore, who felt
called to preach the gospel, or who stooC
for great principle, there was no cours
open but TO remain in fellowship with tn
church until deposed after trial
A much more fundamental question wa
at stake, said DR.. Briggs, than any prin
ciple OF law or doctrine than had yet bee
discussed That was whether the Presby
: terian church should be considered as
: merely voluntary religious society or
4 church of Jesus Christ. It was the civi
: law Of the land, he said, that no ma
should be twice tried for the same often
The New York presbytery, under orders O
the General Assembly, tried DIR. Brigg
]
, 1t was true the church did not punish
+ minister in his physical being, but to de
c pose q minister TO deprive him Of his e'
r olesiastical duties, was to infiict punisl
6 ment far more cruel than that permittet
+ In the civil courts.
DIR. Briggs then discussed the law {
appeals. This he asserted could be il
4 voked only by parties original to the oas
Il and aggrieved parties
= II was claimed by some, continued d
Il Briggs, that the Presbyterian church
s the United States in America suffered
/. grievance by the final judgment Of u
presbytery OF New York. But when di
Il ever ocour that the public prosecute
A was entitled to appeal because in h
d opinion a majority of the people were NJ
70 satisfied with the verdicti
n Unless the high court OF the General A
n sembly should not act in strict accordanS
n with the forms Of law and upon the CO.
Itituuon of the church, and with the s
cred rights of men as set forth in no
n scrip ture and our national cons titution,
"A would be no rebellion Il the minority
"a the church continued the struggle again
,r unrighteousness and wrong.
& DR.. Briggs spoke an hour and hal
and then, at 5;55, yielded for motion
adjourn.