Year: 1878

Presbytery of East Hanover? No evasion
is possible, for the "judge, jury, attorney
and by-standerS," would not, of course, i'm
plicate themselves 1t amounts to this: Tn,
Judge, jury, attorney, and bystanders" o
the Richmond Hastings Court regarded DIR
Baird as an innocent man, undergoing per
Secution at the hands of some of his brethren
before said court, and this writer in the Chris
tian Observer agrees with them. He plainly
tells the members of the civil tribunal, thai
their conduct stands out in admirable con
trsst with the spirit manifested by the Pres
bytery. Is this good taste? Is it good
Presbyterianism !? Is it the expression Of
true loyalty to the law, or true desire for
the peace of our beloved Church


But We not only object to the tone of such
articles. The most important facts are ig-
nored. The writer assumes as facts the pic
lures of bis own Imagination. The Rich
mond Hastings Court did not, could not de-
eide that DR.. Baird was innocent of moral
delinquency. 1t is strange indeed that such
an inference should be drawn, when the
worst criminals are so often discharged for
technical reasons. The humane maxim of
the law requires that ninety-nine guilty per-
sons shall be allowed to escape, rather than
incur the risk of furnishing one that is inno-
cent. 1t was never understood before that
an acquittsl meant triumphant conclusion
of innocence. What evidence have we of the
private opinions of the "judge, jury, attOr-
ney, and by,stander8," as to the moral char
acter of Dr.. Baird's proceedings? Not one
word. Every one of these men may have
been eminently pure, but it is hazardous
assumption of writer from a distant State,
that such body of men, as usually cOnsti-
tuted could be safely depended upon for a
decision in morals, more just or merciful
than that of one of our Presbyteries. But
as a court, there was no mere question of
moral imprOpriety before them. The ques,
tion was, did the law require the accused to
be personally punished? ? Aud it was no
doubt decided with perfect propriety that it
did not But what right has this writer to
tell US that g the judge, the jury, the attOr-
ney, and the by-standerS" thought the trial
was a persecution 7 How does he know
their thoughts ? And if anything occurred
to indicate what their thoughts were, what
was the ground of their thoughts !? Did he
overlook the fact that the Commonwealth was
the prosecutor. The Preebytery had moth
ing to do with the indictment, which was
ordered by the grand jury. If the State
originated the prosecution, she alone can be
charged with the persecution. But this was
far from the intention of this writer, who
evidently aims the OdiouS imputation at the
Church or some of its members, whom he
represents the court, like Gallo of old, as
driving " from the judgment seat.


This writer, and others of his class, have
evidently cOnfOunded the functions of civil
and ecclesiastical tribunals. Civil courts
deal with persons, and pronounce sentences
of punishment Church courts, on the other
hand, deal with character, and infct cen
sures. Punishment of course involves dis
grace, and censure must always give pain.
But the primary end in the one case is the
protection of society, and that of the other,
the vindication of truth. Nothing therefore
can be more unjust than to make decision
of the former, conclusion of error in the lat
ter. 1t is shameful in Christian writer to
appeal to the action of worldly body of
men, largely composed of the irreverent and
the prOfane, to condemn body of Christian
ministers and elders, solemnly, prayerfully,
tearfully engaged in investigating the con-
duct of one of their brethren.


1t is altogether immaterial to this inquiry
whether the Presbytery of East Hanover
reached right or wrong conclusion. 1t
is immaterial whether Dr.. Baird is guilty or
innocent. l have nothing to do with these
points, am not member of the Presbytery,
and was not in attendance on any of the
occasions referred to. utterly disclaim all
partizanship in the matter. But feel deep
ly concerned that party feeling cannot be ex-
cluded from the investigation which is still
pending. The articles criticized have ten
deucy to foster such a spirit, and to inter.
fere most seriously with the judicial process
es upon which the Church must enter here
after. The writer's of them may not have
been conscious of deliberate purpose to
awaken improper feelings, but the want Of
consideration is a grave fault in those who
would enEghten others through the press.


Nothing can be discovered in this painful
occasion to Justify the formation of parties
in the Southern Presbyterian Church. But
the more the Church courts are held up tC
public odium the more certainly will parties
be formed. 1t i8 8impOssible to see any great
principle or policy that is now in danger, un
less it is pretended that justice cannot bC
done under our organization. Who will af
firm this? Who can believe that We are 81
corrupt as to render civil court necessary
as a refuge for our ministers from eCclesiaS
tioal oppression? If any one chooses tt
bring such charge, let it be done openly
and not by insinuatiOn.


What our Church very much needs is


diversion of her energies from controver