The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1893-05-25
DIR. BRIGGS ARGUMENT
Urging the Rejection of the Prose-
cutors' Appeal.
MAJoRITIEs OPPOSED TO CHANGES

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 admittance was terrific. Many
prominent people were in attendance, but
I'm order to enable others to attend one Of
the sessions some additional regulations
governing admittance to the church may
be adopted.
Rev. George d. Baker, chairman re.
ported that the judicial committee unani-
mously recommended that the prosecuting
committee be 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,
III desired, to four hours.
Rev. DIR. w. +. 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 an end to the dissension and
disputation which the New York presby-
tcry vainly endeavored to silence, first by
the dismissal of the case against DIR.
Briggs, and second, by the acquittnl Of
Dr. Briggs qualifying both the dismissal
and the acquittal by the positive dis
claimer of any approval of the controverted
statements of the inaugural address as to
critical or theological views and manner Of
expression.
"rhe form in which the final Judgment
OF the presbytery was returned gives the
impression that the alleged errors of Pro-
fsssor Briggs were unimportant, and TINT
NO essential doctrine had been contra
dicted. There has been tendency to min
aurize the full force of the indictm ent.
"Here is a series of errors covering the
whole Fundamental structure of our faith
II Is aquestion purely doctriual and there
toro of universal Importance SO far as
Presbyterianism is concerned. 1t can be
hnaily settled by no presbytery or synod,
but requires the decision of the presbytery
and church in its highest court"
In reply to the argument that nm appeal
cannot be taken from verdict of acquttal,
DR.. Birch said that this was equivalent TO
. claim that part of the church was
greater than the whole
At 3:l5 O'Clock DIR. Briggs arose to reply
othe opening of the prosecuting commit
tee- Tho question before the assembly
YVES not, he said whether or not DR. Briggs
taachings were proper, but whether or not
the appeal could be. e.lawfully entertained,
THO law of the case at this stage forbade
the consideration Of its merits and he ex-
pressed regret that the prosecution had
mot observed this law.
The first thing to be decided was whether
tho form of tho appeal was correct, not
whether any matters existed which might
srstify the sustaining of the appeal. II
there was any want of form or detail in
the appeal the General Assembly could
NO. lawfully take jurisdiction
DIR. Briggs asserted that the final judg-
nsnt OF the presbytery in the case was
really declared by the moderator of the
New York presbytery on Dec. So 1892, and
from that appeal should be taken If from
any action of the presbyte y, nd nc frt m
action on Jan. Q, 1893 He was not to be
exposed to the peril that lay in a possible
change of the composition Of the body in
ths interim; nor put In jeopardy a second
tine because of mistake by the court
which tried him at a date subsequent to
that on which the final Judgment was
really delivered If any man thought
these objections were puerile and tech
niral let him put himself in his place. Why
should he waive any of his rights when
ths prosecution was cndeaVoring to take
his ecclesiastical life?
The second group ON which the appellee
opposed the entertaining OF the appeal was
that 1t was well established principle of
law that public prosecutor could not ap-
paal from verdict of acqnittal. The de-
fendant was accused Of heresy and DIR.
definitions of heresy and tho history of the
manner OF dealing with IT, Now, he said,
tho punishment for tho crime of hercsy
might not deprive man of his life limb
or liberty, but the punishment might af-
fert or destroy mans ecclesiastical life,
ard it therefor became Il pertinent ques-
tion whether or moi man be twice placed
IN jeopardy of his ecclesiastical life after
having been fully tried and acquitted
Upon the question OF the standing of a
man charged with the crime OF heresy, DR..
BHgg, quoted, sarcastically, tho express
sion of member of the bly, used in
an article he had written to prepare his
brethren for considering this case in a
Christian and judicial frame of mind that
any man found himself teaching views
In opposition to those of majority of the
Presbyterian church, he was in honor
bound 10 leave the church. This was not
nqnestion of majority, but of law and of
right. Any attempt of a majority of the
church to exact from brother, minister
or teacher, anything more than what was
required by the constitutional standards,
might be good club law, he said, but it was
not good ecclesiastical law.
siajorities had always been opposel to
change or improvement, AMI to enforce
their rule was to make it impossible for
the church to reetify error, For a Pres.
bJterinn minister, therefore, who felt
called to preach the gospel, or who stood
for a great principle, there was no course
open but to remain in fellowship with the
church until deposed after trial.
much more fundamental question was
at stake, said DR.. Briggs, than any prin
Gple of law or doctrine than had yet beer
discussed. That was whether the Presby
terian church should be considered as q
merely voluntary religious society or 0
church of Jesus Christ. 1t was the civil
law Of tas land, he said, that no man
should be twice tried for the same offensc
The New York presbytcry, under orders oi
the General Assembly, tried DIR. Briggs
for the crime Of heresy, and acquitted him
1t was true the church did not punish q
minister In his physical being. but to de
pose n minister, to deprive him of his &c
ciesiastical duties, was to inflict a punish
ment far more cruel than that permitted
In the civil courts.
DIR. Briggs then discussed the law O
appeals. This, he asserted, could be In
voked only by parties original to the case
and aggfieyed parties. The new book o
discipline did not contain the word n.
Rrieved, he admitted, but in spirit, tn
right of appeal was confined TO those VIII
we're agarieyed. Was prosecuting com
nittee snch nm aGSrieyed party as to war
rant It in appealing from an adverse judg
mente
1t was claimed by some, continued Di
Briggs, that the Presbyterian church G
the United States in America suffered
grievance by the final judgment of th
presbytery of New York. But when dit
Il ever occur that the public prosecute
sa41.zszas4.s.z.a.saatzza