ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH 
 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
 
 In the United States of America, 
 WASHINOTON, D. C, MAY, 1803. 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 APPELLANT. 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D,D., 
 
 APPELLEE. 
 
 Appellant's Argument before the General 
 
 Assembly in support of the Motion 
 
 to entertain the Appeal, 
 
 May 25th, 1893. 
 
 Argument gf 
 
 JOHN 7. IMcCOOK, 
 
 A Member of the Prosecuting Committee. 
 
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
 
 In the United States of America, 
 ^?VA.St^INQTON, E). C MAY, 1893. 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 APPELLANT, 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE REV. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D, Z>., 
 
 APPELLEE. 
 
 Appellant's Argument before the General As- 
 sembly IN Support of the Motion to 
 entertain the Appeal, 
 May 25th, 1893. 
 
 Argument of 
 
 JOHN y. McCOOK, 
 
 A Member of the Prosecuting Committee. 
 
J 
 
 OHN C. RANKIN CO., PRINTERS, 
 34 CORTLANDT ST., NEW YORK. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN 7 HE 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 APPELLANT, 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE REV. CHARLES A, BRIGGS, D.D., 
 
 APPELLEE. 
 
 Appellant's Argument before the General As- 
 sembly IN Support of the Motion to 
 
 ENTERTAIN THE ApPEAL, 
 
 May 25th, 1893. 
 
 Moderator, Fathers and Brethren : 
 
 All the preliminary questions involved in this case 
 were fully discussed and determined by the General 
 Assembly of 1892. 
 
 Among the questions thus determined are the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 1. That the appeal was taken by the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, as an original 
 party. 
 
 2. That the original party is represented by the 
 Prosecuting Committee. 
 
 3. That such committee is a Prosecuting Committee 
 appointed under Section 11 of the Book of Discipline. 
 
 4. The original party, by its Prosecuting Committee, 
 has the right in this case, to take such an appeal from 
 the Presbytery directly to the General Assembly. 
 
5. That such an appeal is regular and in order. 
 
 Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution and 
 the precedents established by the General Assembly, 
 as the Supreme Court of our Church, these and some 
 other questions passed upon by the last Assembly are 
 res adjudicata and should not be again discussed. 
 
 The law of the Presbyterian Church is, that it is not 
 competent for one General Assembly to revise or remew 
 any proceedings of a previous Assembly taken in a 
 judicial case. (See Appeal of Lowry, Minutes, 1824, 
 page 115, Case of Worrell, Minutes, 1864, page 398.) 
 
 I must take a few minutes of your valuable time, 
 to deal with the technical points raised by the 
 Appellee. 
 
 The Appellee's argument that the Appellant must 
 prove himself an aggrieved party, though brilliant in 
 detail and interesting in method, was wholly irrelevant, 
 as he himself frankly stated at the outset. In the new 
 Book of Discipline, he tells us, the term "original 
 party" replaces that of "aggrieved party " in the old 
 Book. It is fair to presume that this change was 
 made designedly, but in Viwj event the revised Book 
 says nothing of the "aggrieved party." Section 94 of 
 the new Book gives the right of appeal to ' ' either of 
 the original parties," and gives it as an unquestioned 
 constitutional right. 
 
 The Appellee enunciated a strange principle when 
 he informed us that a debision in a judicial case is not 
 a decision as to doctrine. He intimated that litigation 
 does not lead to final interpretation of law. Granting 
 that this court cannot give a final interpretation, 
 nothing could be easier or simpler than for this Assem- 
 bly, in its legislative capacity, by deliverance, to affirm 
 the decision made by the Assembly as a Court. But 
 the general statement is erroneous. The Supreme 
 Court of the United States, by the Constitution, is 
 
made the final interpreter of tlie Constitution. Cases 
 are constantly carried thither to secure a definitive 
 and final interpretation. The General Assembly is 
 made the final interpreter of our Constitution. It has 
 almost invariably refused to decide principles, in tJiesi, 
 requiring a concrete case upon which to render a 
 decision. True, the Gfeneral Assembly, like the United 
 States Supreme Court, may err ; but its decision, like 
 that of the United States Supreme Court, is final, is 
 law, and must be submitted to. 
 
 The Appellee said that the decision of the New York 
 Presbytery does not bind the Church. True ; but if 
 ignored it will bind the Church, for it permits the doc- 
 trines alleged to be heretical, to be preached within the 
 bounds of that Presbytery without rebuke. We are 
 not Congregationalists ; we are Presbyterians. The 
 New York Presbytery is not like the Manhattan Con- 
 gregational Association ; it is a part of the one great 
 Church, whose representatives are assembled here. Its 
 decisions, touching doctrine, affect the whole Church 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific. 
 
 The ingenious argument of the Appellee respecting 
 the use of the terms ''decision" and "final judgment" 
 in the title of the ap^Deal has very little to do with the 
 case. In so far as the term "final judgment" is con- 
 cerned, it matters not whether it be confined to the 
 mere assertion of acquittal, or be extended, as the 
 Presbytery evidently intended, and as the Committee 
 of Prosecution thinks it should be, to cover the whole 
 judgment rendered and recorded as the judgment of 
 the New York Presbytery on January 9, 1893. In this 
 discussion by the Appellee, Section 95 .of the Book of 
 Discipline was not read to you. That section gives, 
 among other grounds of appeal, the following : "Has- 
 tening to a decision before the testimon}^ is fully taken, 
 and mistake or injustice in the decision.'''' All that 
 portion of the appeal against which the Appellee pro- 
 
6 
 
 tested so earnestly is relevant. While tlie appeal 
 itself, as you will see from page 4 of the printed record 
 placed in your hands, is from the final judgment only, 
 yet according to Section 95, all errors, all actions in 
 any portion of the proceedings from their inception, to 
 the record of the final judgment, are proper grounds 
 for appeal. By reference to the printed record, pages 
 160 and 163, you will see that the entire report of "the 
 Committee appointed to bring in the result of the vote 
 and the judgment of the Judicatory" was accepted, 
 adopted in its several parts, then as a whole, and that 
 on the 9th day of January, 1893, the report was de- 
 clared to be the judgment of the court, and was entered 
 accordingly. 
 
 After glancing at the minutes of the meeting of the 
 Presbytery of New York, held on December 30, 1892 
 (printed record, pages 137-8), a meeting from which, 
 under the provisions of Section 23 of the Book of Disci- 
 pline, the parties and all other persons not members of 
 the body were excluded, you will see that the acts 
 there recorded do not fix the time, from which the ten 
 days for giving notice of appeal under Section 96 runs. 
 The minutes do not indicate that the result of the vote 
 was made known ; it is not recorded as a part of the 
 proceedings of the meeting. A committee was ap- 
 pointed to bring in the result of the vote and the judg- 
 ment of the Judicatory. The parties were again admit- 
 ted to the Judicatory on January 9th, after the report 
 of the Committee had been read, accepted, adopted, 
 and entered upon the minutes as the final judgment of 
 the Judicatory (printed record, pages 160, 163, 164). 
 The parties were then re-admitted to the court, and the 
 final judgment, as entered, was made known to them. 
 
 Section 96 of the Book of Discipline provides that 
 " Written notice of appeal, with specifications of the 
 errors alleged, shall be given within ten days after the 
 judgment has been rendered." Within ten days after 
 
tlie judgment was entered in this case and made known 
 to the parties, written notice of appeal was given. 
 
 In view of these facts, I ask, is it frank, is it fair, is 
 it candid to suggest that this appeal was not taken in 
 due time? However, this quibble, raised by the 
 Appellee, is not relevant or material now, for both the 
 majority and minority of the Judicial Committee have 
 reported the appeal to be in order, and this Assembly 
 has already — 
 
 '^Resolved, That the General Assembly finds that 
 due notice of the appeal in this case has been given, 
 and that the appeal and specifications of the errors 
 alleged have been filed in due time and that the ap- 
 peal is in order in accordance with the provisions of 
 the Book of Discipline." 
 
 I should not have taken a second of your time with 
 these details, but I felt it was necessary to show how 
 irrelevant to the question now before the house, was 
 the long discussion of preliminary points, with which 
 the Appellee favored us during the afternoon session of 
 yesterday, all of which points have been definitely 
 settled in this case by this or the last Assembly. Most, 
 if not all, of these preliminary questions discussed by 
 the Appellee yesterday are now res adjudicata in this 
 case, and should not engage your attention for a 
 moment. 
 
 But as the Appellee in this case, has persistently 
 urged the contrary view, in all the Courts of our Church, 
 out of abundant caution and so that no duty towards 
 the Church at large, which the Prosecuting Committee 
 represents, may be neglected or overlooked, the fol- 
 lowing considerations are presented. 
 
 Preliminary Suggestions. 
 
 The Judicial Committee and the minority thereof, 
 having reported that the Appeal of the Presbyterian 
 
8 
 
 Church in the United States of America, Appellant, 
 against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., Appellee, is 
 in order, the only question now before the Assembly, 
 sitting as a Court, is whether the Appeal shall be 
 entertained. 
 
 This is a technical legal question which the members 
 of the Assembly must determine by bringing their in- 
 telligence and common sense to bear, in the interpre- 
 tation of a few clearly expressed sections of the Book 
 of Discipline and of the Form of Government of the 
 Church. 
 
 These sections now to be referred to, do not contain 
 words of double meaning, nor do they leave any one 
 who studies them, in uncertainty as to what was meant 
 by the persons who drafted the sections referred to, or 
 by those who voted to make them a part of the Con- 
 stitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America. 
 
 Every Minister and Elder, a member of this Assem- 
 bly, at the time of his ordination, solemnly asserted 
 that he approved of the Government and Discipline 
 of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. 
 
 The time has come, when, as Commissioners rep- 
 resenting your respective Presbyteries, you are brought 
 face to face with a great crisis in the affairs of our 
 Church. And it behooves each one to give full weight 
 and consideration to the obligation assumed, when that 
 ordination vow was taken, and without fear or favor, to 
 see to it that his duty in this behalf is fully performed. 
 
 The proceedings now to be taken in this case must 
 be conducted under the provisions of two or three 
 sections of the Form of Government, and a few sec- 
 tions of the Book of Discipline. 
 
 The Book of Discipline. 
 This Book of Discipline has been part of the Consti- 
 
9 
 
 tution of tlie Presbyterian Church for nearly ten years, 
 and is the controlling statute which determines what is 
 constitutional and what is or is not lawful, in the pro- 
 cedure with which we are now to deal. This Book of 
 Discipline was not adopted by the Presbyterian Church 
 to cover this case, or any particular case, but its pro- 
 visions are to be applied in exact equity and fairness 
 to all cases where the power of discipline may be in- 
 voked, to secure the results which the 2d section of 
 the Book of Discipline so well describes as follows : 
 '* 2. The ends of Discipline are the maintenance of the 
 ''truth, the vindication of the authority and honor of 
 '' Christ, the removal of offences, the promotion of the 
 '' purity and edification of the Church, and the spirit- 
 *' ual good of offenders." 
 
 Attempts to Discredit the Book. 
 
 It has been popular of late, in certain quarters, to 
 cast reflections upon this Book of Discipline and to dis- 
 credit it. Whether its provisions have been wisely or 
 unwisely adopted we need not now discuss. It is the 
 law of the Church, which must control in all matters 
 of discipline. Even if some of its provisions should 
 seem unwise, to those who are not likely to be satisfied 
 with the results which naturally follow from a clear, 
 definite and logical enforcement of the same, yet it is a 
 part of the Constitution of our Church. Those who 
 still honor and respect that Constitution, and their 
 obligation to it, assumed when they took their 
 ordination vow, will, I am sure, give their voices and 
 votes in favor of a proper enforcement of its provisions. 
 
 The Old Book and Precedents thereunder are 
 NO longer Authoritative. 
 
 It should be understood from the first, that the pro- 
 visions of the old Book of Discipline, in so far as they 
 have not been re-enacted in the new Book, and the 
 
10 
 
 precedents based thereon, have at this time, no force 
 or effect whatever as law or ^Drecedents in the Courts 
 of our Church. 
 
 Plan and Purpose of the Eevised Book. 
 
 The intention of the committee, which so deliberately 
 and skillfully drafted the present Book of Discipline, is 
 perfectly evident to those who study its provisions, 
 carefully and without prejudice. That committee be- 
 gan its labors in 1878, and continued the study and 
 work of preparation until the Assembly of 1884. The 
 idea of the Committee was to make the enforcement of 
 discipline effective,and at the same time, by the provisions 
 of the Book, to discourage unnecessary or litigious pro- 
 ceedings. The plan evidently was to do away with the 
 undesirable and often irresponsible charges which arose 
 under the Common Fame clause of the old Book. 
 
 As former trials had in more than one instance 
 aroused strong personal feeling among members of the 
 same Presbytery, it was determined, if possible, to 
 prevent the recurrence in the future of such a condition 
 of affairs. 
 
 To remove the personal element as far as possible, 
 it was provided by Sections 6 and 10 of the Book of 
 Discipline that when a judicatory finds it necessary for 
 the ends of discipline to investigate an alleged offence 
 and when the prosecution is initiated by a judicatory, 
 as in this case, the proceedings shall be instituted in 
 the name of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America and that the Church at large shall he 
 the prosecutor and an original party. 
 
 To place the proceedings on the highest possible 
 plane, the plan of the Book was to make all of the 
 members of the judicatory sitting as a Court, Judges, 
 in the highest and best meaning of that term. They 
 were not to be advocates or partisans. Provision was 
 
11 
 
 also made in Section 11 that when the prosecution is 
 initiated by a judicatory, a committee, known as the 
 Prosecuting Committee, shall be appointed to conduct 
 the prosecution in all its stages, in whatever judicatory, 
 until the final issue be reached. The members of such 
 a committee, when appointed, are, by that act, removed 
 from the body of the Court, as Judges. Like the 
 minister or elder who may prepare or exhibit the cause 
 of the accused, they are not permitted to sit in judg- 
 ment in the case. 
 
 The intention of these provisions of the Book of 
 Discipline was evidently to place the members of a 
 judicatory sitting as a Court, in a purely judicial atti- 
 tude, and to preclude any one who might exhibit 
 prejudice or undue zeal, because of his activity in con- 
 ducting the prosecution, from participating in any way 
 in the decisions of the Court. 
 
 The Provisions of the Book Safeguard and 
 Protect all Interests. 
 
 The result of this is that the interests of every 
 minister, ofiicer and member of the Church, subject to 
 discipline under the provisions of the Book, are pro- 
 tected in the most careful way, and proceedings are 
 not so likely to be instituted by individual prosecutors 
 as under the old Book. If, however, proceedings are 
 instituted by a judicatory, and it finds, after an exam- 
 ination by a special committee, that it is necessary 
 for the ends of discipline to investigate the alleged 
 offence, every possible safeguard and protection has 
 been thrown about the interests of the parties con- 
 cerned. 
 
 The Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian Church 
 is a part of its Constitution. All ministers and officers 
 of the Church, by their ordination vows have approved 
 of and accepted it as such and have committed them- 
 
12 
 
 selves to its support and enforcement. When we know 
 what the provisions of the Book are and apply them to 
 the facts of a particular case, every member of this 
 Assembly should be able to reach a wise and just con- 
 clusion, and to determine what his duty is under the 
 circumstances. 
 
 The Book of Discipline, Sec. 94, provides as follows : 
 
 * 'An Appeal is the removal of a judicial case, by a 
 ''written representation, from an inferior to a superior 
 "judicatory; and may be taken, by either of the 
 *' original parties, from the final judgment of the 
 *' lower judicatory. These parties shall be called 
 *' Appellant and Appellee." 
 
 No question has been raised or can be raised as to 
 the fact that the judgment entered in this matter by 
 the Presbytery of New York, on January 9, 1893, and 
 now appealed from, is the final judgment of the lower 
 judicatory in this case. This having been determined, 
 and the fact is, I believe, unquestioned, the only other 
 important point in this section, requiring attention at 
 this time, is whether the appeal has been taken by 
 either of the original parties. 
 
 Original Parties. 
 To learn who are the original parties we must turn 
 to Section 10 of the Book of Discipline, which is as 
 follows : ''10. When the prosecution is initiated by a 
 "judicatory, the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 "States of America shall be the prosecutor, and an 
 " original party ; in all other cases, the individual pros- 
 " ecutor shall be an original party." 
 
 Such an investigation was made in this case by a 
 special committee. It made a full examination and 
 report, which was discussed in Presbytery. The recom- 
 mendations of the committee were adopted, and a 
 judicial investigation was ordered, before the Prose- 
 
13 
 
 cuting Committee had been appointed. There is no 
 question as to who is the original party. This section 
 (10) makes it mandatory that the Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States of America shall he the prosecutor 
 and an original party. 
 
 Prosecuting Committees. 
 Within the bounds of a Presbytery which is sitting 
 in a judicial capacity, the Cliurch at large can act 
 only through a committee or as represented by a com- 
 mittee. This fact was taken into account in preparing 
 the Book of Discipline, and provision was made 
 therefor, in Section 11, as follows : 
 
 ** When the prosecution is initiated by a judicatory, 
 '' it shall appoint one or more of its own members a 
 ^^ Committee to conduct the prosecution in all its 
 '* stages in whatever judicatory, until the final issue be 
 "reached; provided, that any appellate judicatory 
 *' before which the case is pending shall, if desired 
 " by the prosecuting committee, appoint one or more 
 "of its own members to assist in the prosecution, 
 "upon the nomination of the prosecuting committee." 
 
 The provisions of this section are also mandatory. 
 It does not say that the judicatory may in its dis- 
 cretion, or if necessary appoint, but it is emphatic and 
 declares that it shall appoint a committee to conduct 
 the prosecution, in all its stages, in lohatever judica- 
 tor}^ until the final issue be reached. 
 
 Notice, here, that this is not a temporary committee, 
 to be quickly created and quickly discharged. Such 
 a committee is, in no sense, a "Judicial Committee" 
 to digest and arrange papers, etc., such as is provided 
 for by Rule XLI. of the General Rules for Judicatories, 
 the members of which may sit and vote in the case in 
 which they act. The prosecuting committee provided 
 for by Section 11 of the Book of Discipline cannot be 
 appointed until the prosecution has been initiated 
 
14 
 
 by a judicatory. And this, as provided in Section 
 6, must be after the judicatory has found it necessary 
 for the ends of discipline to investigate the alleged 
 offence. 
 
 Status of the Prosecuting Committee. 
 Throughout the conduct of this case the position of 
 the Prosecuting Committee has been attacked. Al- 
 though the status of the Committee was fully and 
 finally determined by the last General Assembly, this 
 question has been again raised by the Appellee, in his 
 argument in opposition to the entertainment of the 
 Appeal. 
 
 Under these circumstances it becomes important that 
 the members of this Assembly should have a complete 
 understanding of what the Presbytery of New York, 
 the Synod of New York and the General Assembly 
 have done with reference to the status of the Prosecu- 
 ting Committee as representing the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, the Appellant 
 in this case. The following are the facts : 
 
 Action of New York Presbytery as to the 
 Prosecuting Committee. 
 
 At a meeting of the Presbytery of New York in 
 April, 1891, a committee was appointed to consider 
 the Inaugural Address of the Appellee in its relation to 
 the Confession of Faith. This Committee, in its report, 
 recommended " that the Presbytery enter at once upon 
 the judicial investigation of the case," and the Presby- 
 tery having adopted the recommendation, the report 
 was adopted. That was the inception of the case. 
 The Prosecuting Committee, of which the Bev. G. W. 
 F. Birch, D. D., is Chairman, was appointed at the 
 meeting of the Presbytery of New York held in May, 
 1891, " to arrange and prepare the necessary proceed- 
 ings appropriate in the case of Dr. Briggs." The in- 
 tent of the Presbytery in appointing the Committee 
 
15 
 
 was to make it such a Committee as is contemplated by 
 Section 11 of the Book of Discipline — namely, a Pros- 
 ecuting Committee. 
 
 An appeal was made to you this morning by the Ap- 
 pellee, on the ground that he had not been courteously 
 or fairly dealt with by this Committee. This Committee 
 has no explanation or apology to make for anything 
 that it has done, as it believes, under the instruction 
 and provision of the Constitution of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, and in pro- 
 tecting the interests of that Church against what is 
 believed to be fundamental error. Although we have 
 been so often criticised, in the public press and else- 
 where, I wish to call the attention, of this Assembly to 
 the fact, that never, except upon the floor of the Courts 
 of this Church, so far as I know, has any member of 
 this Committee given public expression to his views or 
 ideas. We have held that we represented the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America, as a 
 whole, and if it appeared to be for the interest of any 
 one to criticise or blame us, that we would have to take 
 the blame, until the final issue is reached, and the 
 Presbyterian Church determines whether we have or 
 have not done our duty. But the suggestion was made 
 by him that courtesy had not been extended to the 
 Appellee in this matter. It is only right and fair that 
 you should know (everybody in the Presbytery of 
 JSTew York knows it, for the letter I am about to read 
 has been read in the hearing of that Presbytery), that 
 before a single step was taken by the Committee 
 appointed by the Presbytery to consider the Inaugural 
 Address, the Chairman of that Committee wrote to the 
 Rev. Dr. Briggs, suggesting that meetings of the Com- 
 mittee would be held at a certain time and place, and 
 asking that Dr. Briggs would join them, for conference, 
 before any action was taken. I will now read to you, 
 without comment, the answer received by the Commit- 
 tee to their invitation, and then I shall let the matter 
 pass. 
 
16 
 
 ^'120 West 93d Street, 
 
 '' New York, April 24, 1891. 
 ^' The Rev. G. W. F. Birch, D. D. 
 ''My dear Sir: 
 
 '' In resj)onse to your letter of April 23d, 
 '' inviting me to be i:)resent at the next meeting of a 
 '' committee, of which you are Chairman, I beg leave 
 '' to say : (1) The state of my health will not admit of 
 '' my compliance with your invitation, and (2) If I 
 *' were in good health, I would still be obliged to 
 '' decline, for the reason that it would seem that your 
 ' ' committee were appointed to consider my ' Inaugural 
 '' Address,' and not to consider any explanations of it 
 ' ' I might be willing to make. 
 
 " Yours resiDectfully, 
 
 '' C. A. Briggs." 
 
 The Presbytery of New York has regarded the said 
 Committee, at all times, as a Prosecuting Committee, 
 appointed in accordance with Section 11 of the Book of 
 Discipline, as is evidenced by the following action and 
 extracts from its records. 
 
 The Presbytery acceiDted and adopted the charges 
 and specifications prepared by the Committee and 
 entered upon the trial, with this Committee acting as 
 a Committee of Prosecution, and the Appellee himself 
 agreed in open session of the Presbytery, on October 
 6, 1891, that he would so proceed to trial, and that 
 arrangement is recorded at page 479 of Volume 13 of 
 the Records of the Presbytery of New York, as follows : 
 
 " By agreement between Dr. Briggs and the Prose- 
 cuting Committee '^ it was resolved that the 4th day of 
 November, 1891, at 10 a. m., be fixed as the day on 
 which the citation is returnable and that the citation 
 
 * The italics throughout, unless otherwise indicated, are mine. — 
 J. J. McC. 
 
17 
 
 be issued for that date, in accordance with Section 19 
 of the Book of Discipline." 
 
 The following is an extract from the citation served 
 npon Dr. Briggs by the Moderator, in the presence 
 of the Presbytery of New York, on September 6, 1891 : 
 
 '' Citation. 
 
 " You are hereby furnished with a copy of the 
 charges and specifications presented to the Presbytery 
 on the 5th day of October, 1891, by the Committee 
 of Prosecution appointed by the Presbytery of New 
 York at its meeting in May last, which report, with 
 its accompanying recommendations, were accepted and 
 adopted by this Presbytery on the said 5th day of 
 October, 1891. 
 
 '' (Signed) John C. Bliss, Moderator." 
 
 The certificate accompanying the charges and speci- 
 fications served upon Dr. Briggs by the Moderator, in 
 the presence of the Presbytery, on October 6, 1891, is 
 as follows : 
 
 "I hereby certify that the foregoing is an authen- 
 tic copy of the charges and specifications against 
 Prof. Charles A. Briggs, which tlie Presbytery of New 
 Yorli has ordered shall he prosecuted. 
 
 "(Signed) John C. Bliss, Moderator." 
 
 "October 6, 1891." 
 
 The following quotations are from Volume 13 of 
 the Records of the Presbytery of New York, and 
 fully indicate the status of the Prosecuting Committee 
 and the purpose and intent of the Presbytery in 
 appointing the same. 
 
 Page 434. '' The time having come in the order of 
 business to receive the report of the Committee of 
 Prosecution in the case of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, 
 Rev. George Alexander asked leave to introduce," 
 etc., and he introduced a paper. 
 
18 
 
 Also on page 434. "Objection was made on the 
 ground that Dr. Birch, as Chairman of the Committee 
 of Prosecution, had the floor, and that the motion to 
 susi3end the order of the day could not be introduced." 
 
 Page 435. "The Committee of Prosecution in the 
 case of Dr. Briggs, appointed in compliance loith Sec- 
 tion 11 of the Book of Discipline, at the meeting of 
 Presbj'tery in May last, reported as follows" : 
 
 The following is an extract from the paper proposed 
 by the Rev. George Alexander, D. D., as a substitute for 
 the recommendation contained in the report of the 
 Prosecuting Committee : 
 
 Page 463. " Whereas, the Presbytery of New York, 
 at its meeting in May last, on account of utterances 
 contained in an inaugural address delivered January 
 20th, 1891, appointed a committee to formulate charges 
 against the author of that address, the Rev. Charles 
 A. Briggs, D. D." 
 
 Page 463. The report made by the Prosecuting 
 Committee containing the charges and specifications 
 "was accepted by the Presbytery." 
 
 Page 470. The recommendation in the report of the 
 Prosecuting Committee in the matter of Dr. Briggs 
 was adopted. 
 
 During the proceedings of the Presbytery of New 
 York, on November 4th, 1891, when the case was dis- 
 missed, the minutes, Yol. 14, page 90, show that the 
 following action was taken : 
 
 "At this point (after the reading of Dr. Briggs' Re- 
 sponse), the question as to the status of the Prosecut- 
 ing Committee was raised. The Moderator decided 
 that the Committee was properly a Committee of Pros- 
 ecution in view of the previous action of Presbytery as 
 recorded, and represented the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America, and was in the house as 
 
19 
 
 an original party in the case, under provision of Sec- 
 tion 10 of the Book of Discipline, and is now virtually 
 independent of Presbytery." 
 
 ''An appeal was taken from the decision of the 
 Moderator. The question was divided. The Modera- 
 tor was sustained in the point that the Committee was 
 m the house as a properly appointed Committee of 
 Prosecution. The Moderator was also sustained in the 
 point that the Committee as representing the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America was an 
 original party in the Complaint." 
 
 This action of the Judicatory in sustaining the 
 Moderator upon the appeal from his decision as to the 
 status of the Prosecuting Committee is itself conclu- 
 sive evidence of the intent of the Presbytery in ap- 
 pointing and recognizing the Prosecuting Committee 
 as such. 
 
 The above ruling of the Moderator of the Presbytery 
 of New York as to the status of the Prosecuting Com- 
 mittee, which was appealed from and sustained by the 
 Presbytery, was undoubtedly in accordance with the 
 provisions of the Book of Discipline, under which the 
 Presbytery was then acting as a judicatory. 
 
 Approval by the Synod of New York of the 
 Presbytery's Records. 
 An examination of Volume 13 of the Records of the 
 Presbytery of New York, covering all the proceedings 
 above referred to, except the last, shows at page 483 
 that the Synod of New York during its session held at 
 Watertown, New York, on October, 22 1891, examined 
 and approved of the said record. The said Synod 
 has therefore approved of the appointment of this Com- 
 mittee and of its action as a Committee of Prosecution 
 up to October 22, 1891. The period covers the appoint- 
 ment of the Prosecuting Committee, the adoption of its 
 report, including the charges and specifications, the ser- 
 
20 
 
 vice of citation by the Moderator upon Dr. Briggs, and 
 Ms agreement with the Prosecuting Committee in open 
 Presbytery as to the day upon which tlie citation was 
 to be returnable. 
 
 Relation of a Prosecuting Committee to the 
 Church at Large. 
 The mere assignment or appointment of certain mem- 
 bers of the Presbytery to act as a Prosecuting Com- 
 mittee, when once made, under Section 11 of the Book 
 of Discipline, gives that Committee a relation to the 
 Church at large. It acts on behalf of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America. It represents 
 the entire Church, and, as such, is an original party. 
 In its representative capacity it is the prosecutor and 
 cannot be disturbed by the Presbytery. 
 
 If this were not so, the Church at large could not 
 take and perfect an appeal, although it is one of the 
 original parties. Yet all proceedings initiated by a 
 judicatory, as in this case, must he instituted in the 
 name of the Church, in compliance with Section 10 of 
 the Book of Discipline. 
 
 Whenever a judicial process is initiated by the 
 judicatory, special conditions arise. The Presbytery 
 is placed in extraordinary and exceptional relations to 
 the Church at large, in that the Presbyterian Church 
 becomes a prosecutor at its bar ; for such exceptional 
 relations, exceptional provisions are needed, and they 
 have been made. The Presbytery ought not to be 
 judge and prosecutor at the same time. 
 
 To obviate this difficulty, the Constitution, Book of 
 Discipline, Section 10, requires the Presbytery to ap- 
 point a committee to conduct the prosecution in the 
 name of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
 of America. This committee, not the Presbytery, 
 represents the whole Church. It is not dependent for 
 its existence on the will of the Presbytery. It does 
 
21 
 
 not derive its powers from the will of the Presbytery. 
 It is not limited in its action by the will of the Pres- 
 bytery. This is evident from the following consid- 
 erations : 
 
 1st. The act of Presbytery in appointing the com- 
 mittee of prosecution is ministerial only. The com- 
 mittee of prosecution is in no sense the creature of 
 Presbytery. It owes its existence to the Constitution 
 itself. The Presbytery has no discretion in the mat- 
 ter. Having determined to initiate judicial process, it 
 is under obligation to appoint the committee of pros- 
 ecution, whose duties are defined by Section 11 of the 
 Book of Discipline. 
 
 The President of the United States nominates, and 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
 appoints the judges of the Supreme Court. In making 
 such appointments the President and Senate act minis- 
 terially, in obedience to a constitutional! requirement. 
 The power to appoint and to confirm, in these circum- 
 stances, does not give the President or the Senate in 
 any degree, the right of control over the action and 
 tenure of the judges. The judges are appointed accord- 
 ing to the provisions of the Constitution ; they shape 
 their official life and conduct according to the directions 
 of that instrument, in entire independence of the 
 appointing and confirming power. 
 
 This illustrates the position of the committee of 
 prosecution in our judicial system. The mere power 
 of appointment, in a ministerial way, does not give 
 the Presbytery the right to control the action and life 
 of the committee. It is not a presbyterial committee. 
 It is created by the Constitution, which determines its 
 duties and the length of its life. 
 
 2d. The language of the Book necessarily implies 
 that the committee of prosecution is to represent the 
 Presbyterian Church in every case where the judica- 
 
22 
 
 tory initiates the prosecution. Section 11 of the Book 
 makes the tenth Section effective. 
 
 Section 10 directs that, when a judicatory initiates 
 prosecution, the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America sliall he the i)rosecutor, and an 
 original party ; and Section 11 orders that a committee 
 shall he appointed by that judicatory " to conduct 
 " the prosecution." The provisions of Section 11 are 
 absolutely necessary to carry those of Section 10 into 
 effect. And the import of these provisions cannot be 
 mistaken. The Presbyterian Church shall be the 
 prosecutor, and the committee shall conduct the pros- 
 ecution. Since, then, the Presbyterian Church is to 
 conduct its business as prosecutor, through the instru- 
 mentality of the committee of prosecution, the relation 
 between the two can be properly expressed in any 
 given case, only, by saying that the committee repre- 
 sents the Church. 
 
 3d. It is sufficiently evident that the committee of 
 prosecution, and not the Presbytery, represents the 
 Presbyterian Church, for, according to Section 11, the 
 committee is "to conduct the prosecution, in all its 
 " stages, in whatever judicatory, until the final issue 
 " be reached.'" 
 
 This language means that if the case be taken to the 
 higher judicatories, the committee of prosecution must 
 follow it, to conduct the prosecution in all its stages 
 until a final settlement is reached. 
 
 But if the committee of prosecution has only a pres- 
 byterial relation, and can exist and act only by the 
 will of the Presbytery, then it cannot exercise its func- 
 tions beyond the bounds of the Presbytery whose 
 creature it is. It would be precluded, by any such re- 
 lations, from prosecuting "in the higher courts. The 
 Presbytery itself has no right to prosecute either at the 
 bar of the Synod or of the Assembly, and cannot, 
 
23 
 
 therefore, empower any of its committees to do so, 
 altliougli it may appear through a committee to defend 
 its own action before a superior judicatory. 
 
 But the Book's meaning is clear, that the Presby- 
 terian Church shall continue to be the prosecutor at 
 every stage, and shall do its work as prosecutor by 
 means of the Committee of Prosecution. That com- 
 mittee, then, is related constitutionally, not to the 
 Presbytery, but to the Presbyterian Church. For this 
 reason, its duties are defined, and its rights are guar- 
 anteed in all the higher judicatories. 
 
 The words, "in all its stages, in whatever judi- 
 " catory," as used in Section 11, involve the right of 
 appeal for both original parties ; and since the Presby- 
 terian Church, as an original party, conducts the 
 prosecution by means of the Committee of Prosecu- 
 tion, it is the intent of the Book, that the committee 
 should have the power of appeal, in the name of the 
 Church. The power to appeal is a necessary part of 
 that prosecution, which the committee is directed to 
 conduct in behalf of the Church. It is the only way 
 in which the Presbyterian Church can exercise this 
 right of an original party. 
 
 As still further confirmatory of the position that the 
 Committee of Prosecution is not a presbyterial com- 
 mittee, but is constitutionally related to the Presby- 
 terian Church, we have the additional direction of 
 Section 11, "that any appellate judicatory before 
 " which the case is pending shall, if desired by the 
 " prosecuting committee, appoint one or more of its 
 '' own members to assist in the prosecution, upon the 
 " nomination of the prosecuting committee." This 
 provision, alone, suffices to prove the prosecuting com- 
 mittee wholly independent of the initiating judicatory. 
 That committee has the sole right to determine whether 
 or not it will have any addition to its membership, 
 
24 
 
 and then to name those to be added by the superior 
 judicatory. If this were a mere presbyterial commit- 
 tee, having no right to act beyond the will of the Pres- 
 bytery, then, whenever it might become desirable to 
 have assistance in the prosecution, this committee 
 would have to apply to Presbytery for additional 
 members, since neither Synod nor Assembly has the 
 right to constitute, increase or diminish presbyterial 
 committees. 
 
 There can be no doubt, then, that the Committee of 
 Prosecution represents the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, an original party, so far as 
 the prosecution of any given case is concerned, and 
 that it has the constitutional right to take an appeal in 
 the name of that Church, from the final decision of an 
 inferior judicatory in the case. 
 
 Against this conclusion no serious objection is urged 
 except that no precedents, under the new Book, sustain 
 it. The answer to this objection is, that, as this is 
 the first important case of the kind, arising under the 
 present Book of Discipline, there has been no oppor- 
 tunity to establish precedents, except as was done ty^ 
 the General Assembly of 1892, in this case. 
 
 This new procedure was adopted, because the- 
 practice according to the former procedure was un- 
 satisfactory. 
 
 Steps leading to the Revision of the 
 Book of Discipline. 
 
 The old-school Assembly of 1861, on motion of Drs. 
 Charles K. Imbrie and Jonathan Edwards, sent back 
 to the Synod of New Jersey, the appeal and com- 
 plaint of the Presbytery of Passaic against the Synod 
 in the case of Mr. Guild, for the reason that the 
 Synod had not heard the original parties, the Com- 
 mittee of Prosecution being one of them, thus recog- 
 nizing the right of the committee prosecuting on. 
 
25 
 
 '' common fame " to take an appeal. (Minutes of 1861, 
 pp. 146-177.) 
 
 The Assembly of 1877 dismissed the case brought 
 before them on appeal, from the Presbytery of Cin- 
 cinnati, by the Rev. Dr. Thos. H. Skinner and others, 
 who acted as a committee of prosecution, on the ground 
 that the appellants, not being an original party, were 
 not entitled to appeal. But a strong protest was 
 spread on the Minutes, in which the protestants argue 
 with entire conclusiveness that, according to the old 
 Book, not only personal prosecutors and defendants 
 in a judicial case, but any " aggrieved party," and ''all 
 '' persons who have submitted to a regular trial in an 
 " inferior, may appeal to a higher judicatory." The 
 protest was not answered, for the simple reason that 
 the positions taken in it were unanswerable. (Minutes 
 1877, pp. 576 to 580.) 
 
 At the very next Assembly after that, the revision 
 of the Book of Discipline was begun ; and the chapter 
 on appeals was reconstructed. Original parties and 
 their rights were more clearly defined, and the right 
 of appeal given to them exclusively. That uncertain 
 quantity, " Common Fame," was banished altogether, 
 and in place of it, the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, was made the responsible 
 prosecutor, an original party with specific direction 
 to discharge its functions of prosecutor and original 
 party, by means of the committee of prosecution. 
 
 In the old Book, " Common Fame " was not declared 
 to be an original party ; but in the new Book, the 
 Presbyterian Church is made an original party, and, 
 as such, has the constitutional right to take an appeal 
 by means of the committee through whom it conducts 
 the prosecution. 
 
 It is objected that, if the committee of prosecu- 
 tion represents the Presbyterian Church, and is thus 
 
26 
 
 virtually independent of the Presbytery, then great 
 evils are sure to overtake us. It is said that the Pres- 
 byterian Church as represented in the General As- 
 sembly, may itself claim the right of appointing the 
 committee ; that the committee, thus entrusted with 
 enormous powers, may use them to the great injury of 
 accused parties ; and that we open wide the gates for 
 a perfect deluge of litigation, and so endanger the 
 peace and usefulness of the Church to an alarming 
 extent. 
 
 But if all this were true, it would not change the 
 constitutionality of the standing and rights of the 
 committee of prosecution under the Book. It might 
 furnish an argument in favor of changing the Book. 
 But these evils are all purely imaginary. They have 
 never existed, and they are not likely to exist under 
 the present Book of Discipline. 
 
 The Prosecuting Committee of the Book of Dis- 
 cipline, A Safe and Useful Agency to Conduct 
 Peosecutions in Behalf of the Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 There are many considerations to warrant the con. 
 elusion that a committee of prosecution, with just such 
 relations and powers as are indicated in the Book of 
 Discipline, is not only entirely safe, but also highly 
 desirable as an agency for conducting the prosecution 
 on the part of the Presbyterian Church. For 
 
 1. The court which initiates the prosecution, is 
 charged with the duty of appointing the committee. 
 No other body can appoint it, not even the Assembly, 
 since the Constitution does not give it that right. The 
 fact that the committee is charged with grave respon- 
 sibilities and endowed with a large measure of power, 
 leads to the exercise of caution, first in the initiation of 
 prosecution, and then in the selection of the committee. 
 These are strong safeguards and they are entirely 
 
27 
 
 ivithin the control, in tlie first instance, of the respec- 
 tive Presbyteries. 
 
 The fact that under our Book of Discipline the 
 Prosecuting Committee acting for the Church at large 
 is vested with ample powers to secure prompt decisions, 
 is likely to accomplish very beneficial results. 
 
 Presbyteries will be careful not to institute judicial 
 proceedings and appoint such committees, unless, as in 
 this case, strong reasons exist for setting the proceed- 
 ings in motion. 
 
 2. It is not to be presumed that a committee of prose- 
 cution, clothed with powers of the kind named, will 
 become an instrument of inflicting wrong upon innocent 
 parties. The presumption is, that a committee of 
 Christian ministers and elders, appointed after prayer- 
 ful consideration, by a judicatory which is composed 
 of Christian ministers and elders, will be at pains to do 
 only what is just, fair and Christian in the prosecution 
 of any case, and that all the more so, since they are 
 impersonal prosecutors. 
 
 The real danger is that, when there may be urgent 
 need for initiating prosecution in a case like this, no 
 body of men will be found willing to serve on the com- 
 mittee of prosecution, as they will thereby make them- 
 selves liable to be reviled and traduced, as this Prose- 
 cuting Committee has been, for rendering such service 
 to the Church. 
 
 3. To illustrate specifically, in a trial for heresy, the 
 Church, through its doctrines, being the party attacked, 
 is in more immediate danger of suffering injury than is 
 the other party. Her faith, 'purity and peace, her testi- 
 mony for the truth, and her ecclesiastical integrity, 
 are all at stake. The Church ought to have the power to 
 appeal from an adverse decision of an inferior judica- 
 tory, whose members may be in sympathy with the 
 
28 
 
 accused or with his erroneous opinions. Such con- 
 ditions are not impossible. 
 
 An accused person, owing to his social or eccle- 
 siastical position, may exert an influence so great in 
 his Presbytery as to render it extremely difficult, if not 
 altogether impossible, to convict him even on the best 
 of evidence. Or a considerable number of the members 
 of that judicatory, through sympathetic or other 
 interests, may so far forget their positions as judges in 
 the case, that they will not only try to retard and 
 hamper the prosecution in every possible way, but 
 actively plan and labor to procure an acquittal, no 
 matter what the evidence may be. 
 
 If the Presbyterian Church should have no right of 
 appeal, by its committee of prosecution, from a decision 
 thus reached, by possibly a bare majority vote, then in 
 the language of the Book, "heretical opinions ^ -^ -^ 
 may be allowed to gain ground," with the greatest 
 ease, and to an alarming extent. 
 
 This danger is not imaginary in times like our own^ 
 when individual liberty of expression is boldly cham- 
 pioned at the expense of denominational bonds. The 
 Presbyterian Church must have disciplinary methods 
 such as will enable her to meet threatened dangers of 
 this kind, to defend her faith and to preserve her purity, 
 her integrity and usefulness. To this end the Presby- 
 terian Church was made the prosecutor, and an original 
 party, in certain cases, with the constitutional right of 
 prosecuting by a committee. 
 
 Appeal to General Assembly of 1892. 
 
 The Prosecuting Committee representing the Pres- 
 byterian Church as an original party, appealed from 
 the judgment of the Presbytery of New York, dismiss- 
 ing the case, entered on November 4th, 1891, to the 
 General Assembly of 1892. 
 
29 
 
 The Prosecuting Committee based its first appeal 
 from the Presbytery directly to the General Assembly 
 of 1892, upon the special reasons set out therein, which 
 have been substantially repeated in the pending ap- 
 peal. They also relied upon the provisions of Section 
 102 of the Book of Discipline, which is as follows : 
 *' 102. Appeals are, generally, to be taken to the judi- 
 catory immediately superior to that appealed from." 
 And upon Chapter XII., Sections I \^. and Y. of the Form 
 of Government, which are as follows : 
 
 " lY. The General Assembly shall receive and issue 
 all Appeals, complaints and references that affect the 
 doctrine or constitution of the Church which may be 
 regularly brought before them from the inferior y^^i- 
 catories.^'^ 
 
 "Y. To the General Assembly also belongs the 
 power of deciding in all controversies respecting doc- 
 trine and discipline.^' 
 
 This Section lY. of the Form of Government is man- 
 datory and says the General Assembly shall receive 
 and issue all appeals that affect the doctrine or consti- 
 tution of the Church, which may be regularly brought 
 before them from the inferior judicatories. 
 
 This mandatory provision when read in connection 
 with Section 102 of the Book of Discipline leaves but 
 little discretion, when the conditions named by the 
 Book have been complied with. They have been 
 complied with in this case, and it would seem that the 
 Assembly is compelled not only to entertain this 
 Appeal but to issue it as well. 
 
 Action of the General Assembly of 1892 as to 
 Prosecuting Committee. 
 The right of the Prosecuting Committee to take an 
 appeal directly to the General Assembly and its 
 status as a Prosecuting Committee, were questioned 
 at Portland and were fully discussed by the Appellant 
 
30 
 
 and the Appellee. The record of the proceedings in. 
 this branch of the case, will be found at page 90 and 
 following pages in the Minutes of the General Assem- 
 bl}^ for 1892, as follows : 
 
 ''The Judicial Committee presented its report in the 
 case of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
 of America vs. Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., which 
 was accepted as follows : 
 
 ''The Judicial Committee respectfully reports that 
 it has carefully considered the documents submitted to 
 it in this case, and adopted the following resolutions : 
 
 "1. That, in the opinion of this Committee, the appeal 
 taken by the Presbyterian C7iurc7i in the United States 
 of America, an original party represented by the 
 ' Committee of Prosecution,' appointed under Sec- 
 tion 11 of the Book of Discipline, has been taken from 
 the final judgment of the Presbytery in dismissing the- 
 case; and that the said Committee had the right to 
 take this appeal representing the said original party, 
 
 "2. That it finds that the notice of the appeal has 
 been given, and that the appeal, specifications of error, 
 and record have been filed in accordance with Sections 
 96 and 97 of the Book of Discipline, and the appeal is^ 
 order. 
 
 "3. That, in the judgment of the Committee, the 
 appeal should be entertained, and a time set apart for 
 the hearing of the case. 
 
 " In view of these considerations, the Committee re- 
 ports that the appeal is in order, and that the General 
 Assembly should proceed in accordance with the pro- 
 visions of Section 99 of the Book of Discipline, by 
 causing the judgment appealed from, the notice of 
 appeal, the appeal and the specifications of the errors 
 alleged, to be read ; then to hear the appellant by the 
 Committee of Prosecution: then the defendant in. 
 
31 
 
 person, or by his counsel ; tlien the appellant by the 
 Committee of Prosecution in reply upon the question 
 * whether the appeal shall be entertained r." 
 In behalf of the Committee, 
 
 T. Ralston Smith, 
 
 Chaii'man. 
 
 That report was brought before the house. A minor- 
 ity of the Judicial Committee presented a report which 
 was also accepted, and, although the Assembly subse- 
 quently, after full discussion by the parties, laid the 
 minority report on the table and adopted the report 
 of the majority of the Committee, that minority report 
 and the action of the Assembly thereon, becomes 
 of great interest and importance, in view of what is now 
 proposed. The minority of the Judicial Committee 
 clearly expressed their views in the report, and there is 
 not a word in it suggesting that this Prosecuting 
 Committee was not a duly constituted prosecuting com- 
 mitter^. Nor is there any question raised as to the 
 right of the Committee to take the appeal. But what 
 did the minority recommend ? They said : 
 
 ''The undersigned, a minority of the Judicial Com- 
 mittee, would respectfully submit the following report : 
 
 ** Whereas, the Book of Discipline requires that 
 appeals are, generally, to be taken to the Judicatory 
 immediately superior to that appealed from" (Sec. 
 102) ; and. 
 
 Whereas, There are no sufficient reasons for making 
 the appeal against the Presbytery of New York in 
 dismissing the case against Dr. Briggs an exception to 
 this rule ; 
 
 '' Therefore, we recommend to the General Assembly 
 that the appeal be not entertained; that the papers in 
 the case be returned to the Appellant, and tJiat they he 
 
32 
 
 advised to bring their appeal or complaint before the 
 Synod of New York, 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 D. R. Frazee, 
 Thomas Gordon", 
 Oswald P. Backus, 
 George W. Ketcham." 
 
 If this Committee was not a Prosecuting Committee 
 and had not the right to appeal to the General Assem- 
 bly, what right had such a Committee to take an appeal 
 to the Synod of New York ? Before passing away 
 from the consideration of this minority report, it may 
 be well to recall the fact, that the Portland Assembly, 
 after hearing the arguments on both sides, and after 
 discussion by members of the Assembly, did not adopt 
 the recommendations of the minority report to refer the 
 case back to Synod, but laid the minority report upon 
 the table, and adopted the recommendations of the 
 majority of the Committee. 
 
 The Assembly of 1892 Declined to Return 
 
 THE Case to Synod. 
 The General Assembly of 1892, in declining to send 
 the case down to Synod, acted intelligently and has 
 established a precedent in this case which cannot 
 be ignored when that branch of the subject is under 
 discussion. 
 
 These questions as to the status of the Prosecuting 
 Committee, its right to represent the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States as an original party, and 
 its right to take the appeal directly to the General 
 Assembly, were all brought up. After three hours 
 of argument and discussion by the Committee and the 
 Appellee, and by members of the Assembly, action was 
 had as shown by page 118 of the Minutes of the General 
 Assembly of 1892, as follows : 
 
33 
 
 " Resolved, that so mucl) of the re^^ort of the 
 Judicial Coniniittee as relates to the appeal being 
 found in order be adopted." 
 
 This action adopted all of the committee's report, 
 except the two lines of subdivision 3, which were 
 excluded because their adoption would have carried 
 the adoption of the report, the very thing that was up 
 for discussion, namely, whether the appeal should or 
 should not be entertained. For this reason it was con- 
 sidered that subdivision 3 should be reserved for 
 action, after the arguments had been made and this was 
 done. 
 
 The Appeal to the General Assembly of 1892 
 WAS Entertained. 
 
 On page 119 of the Minutes of the General Assembly 
 of 1892, you will find the action of the Assembly, on 
 the question of entertaining the appeal, as follows : 
 
 "It was resolved that the vote on entertaining ilui 
 appeal be now taken without debate. The minority 
 report was read and laid on the table. The Modf^r- 
 ator also announced that the only remaining part, of 
 the majority Beport which had not been adopted icas^ 
 'Third, that in the judgment of the committee, the 
 appeal should be entertained, and a time set apart for 
 the hearing of the case.' This part of the majority 
 report loas then adopted, carrying in the affirmative 
 the question of the entertainment of the apiDeal. It 
 was then resolved, that the Assembly proceed at once 
 with the case in the order prescribed in Section XCIX, 
 Book of Discipline." 
 
 The Appeal was Sustained. 
 
 The appeal to the Assembly having been entertained, 
 the question came up as to the action of the Assembly 
 on the merits of the appeal. The merits were then 
 discussed for an hour and a half by each of the parties, 
 and at the end of that discussion a vote was taken and 
 
34 
 
 the appeal was sustained by a vote of 431 to 87. (General 
 Assembly Minutes 1892, pp. 140-150). ' ' The Moderator 
 announced that the specification of errors in the appeal 
 were all sustained, and the aj^peal was sustained." 
 A committee was appointed to bring in a minute in the 
 case, the report of which will be found at page 152 of 
 the Minutes of 1892, as follows : 
 
 ^'The Committee appointed to prepare a minute in 
 the judicial case of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., 
 presented its report, which was adopted, and is as 
 follows ; 
 
 "To the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America : 
 
 *' Your Committee appointed to draft a form of judg- 
 ment to be entered in the case of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America against Rev. 
 Charles A. Briggs, D. D., respectfully report, and rec- 
 ommend for adoption, the accom^Danying form of 
 decree and order. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Thomas Ewing, 
 
 Chairman.'" 
 
35 
 
 "The Presbyterian Church 
 
 in tlie / Ajjjjeal from thejudg' 
 
 United States oe America, > '^^f^jf ofjhe^ Pre,sbytery 
 vs. 
 Kev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D. 
 
 of New York, dismissing 
 the case. 
 
 " The General Assembly having, on the 28th day of 
 May, 1892, duly sustained all the specifications of error 
 alleged and set forth in the appeal and specification in 
 this case. 
 
 '' It is now. May 30, 1892, ordered, that the judgment 
 of the Presbytery of New York, entered November 4, 
 1891, dismissing the case of the Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States of America, against Rev. Charles 
 A. Briggs, D; D., be, and the same is hereby reversed. 
 And the case is remanded to the Presbytery of New 
 York for a new trial, with directions to the said Pres- 
 bytery to proceed to pass upon and determine the suf- 
 ficiency of the charges and specifications in form and 
 legal effect, and to permit the Prosecuting Committee 
 to amend the specifications or charges, not changing 
 the general nature of the same, if, in the furtherance 
 of justice, it be necessary to amend, so that the case 
 may be brought to issue and tried on the merits thereof 
 as sjDeedily as may be practical. 
 
 ''And it is further ordered, that the stated clerk of 
 the Greneral Assembly return the record, and certify 
 the proceedings had thereon, with the necessary papers 
 relating thereto, to the Presbytery of New York." 
 
 The exact status of the Prosecuting Committee was 
 fully recognized and defined in the report of the 
 majority of the Judicial Committee, which was 
 adopted by the Assembly. It was not questioned 
 in the minority report and it was established by the 
 entertainment and sustaining of the Appeal. In the 
 
36 
 
 mandate of tlie Assembly to tlie Presbytery of New 
 York, the rights of the Committee are recognized in 
 express terms. 
 
 No fair-minded man, after reading the record of what 
 was done in this case, by the General Assembly of 
 1892, can longer question the status of the Prosecuting 
 Committee, but if any further evidence should be re- 
 quired as to what that Assembly did and intended to 
 do, it would be found in a protest presented by the 
 Rev. S. J. McPherson, I). D.,and some 53 or 54 others, 
 against the action of the General Assembly, which 
 protest is found at page 205 of the Minutes of 1892. 
 There was no misunderstanding at Portland, on either 
 side, as to what had taken place, as the protest which 
 certain of those who were on the ground and disap- 
 proved of the Assembly's action clearly shows, as 
 follows : 
 
 *' The following protest was presented and ordered 
 to be entered on the ' Minutes ' of the Assembly with- 
 out answer. 
 
 '' We, the undersigned, ministers and elders, com- 
 missioners of the 104th General Assembly, do hereby 
 enter and record our protest against the action of the 
 General Assembly in entertaining the appeal in the 
 case of 'The Presbyterian Church in the United States 
 of America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D.,' 
 and so giving to the Committee which preferred the 
 charges against Dr. Briggs standing before the Assem- 
 hly and right of appeal as an 'original party,'' 
 beyond the control of the Presbytery and its power to 
 discharge them when dismissing the case.^^ * ^ ^ 
 
 The General Assembly cannot Revise or Reverse 
 Action taken by a Prp:vious Assembly in 
 A Judicial Case. 
 It must be kept in mind that the action of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of 1892, in deciding substantially all of 
 
37 
 
 the questions which can be raised in opposition to the 
 entertainment of this appeal, is not to be referred to 
 simply as a precedent, in a case similar to this. It 
 was action taken after full discussion, and in this 
 judicial case. Among the questions thus passed upon 
 and determined by the Assembly of 1892 are the fol- 
 lowing, which are now res adjudicata in this case. 
 
 1. That the appeal was taken by the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, as an Original 
 Party. 
 
 2. That the Original Party is represented by the 
 Prosecuting Committee. 
 
 3. That such Committee is a Prosecuting Committee 
 appointed under Section 11 of the Book of Discipline. 
 
 4. The Original Party, by its Prosecuting Committee, 
 has the right, in this case, to take such an appeal from 
 the Presbytery, directly to the General Assembly. 
 
 5. That such an Appeal is regular and in order. 
 
 6. The appeal being regular and in order, it must be 
 received and issued by the Assembly and should not be 
 sent down to Synod. (Form of Government, Chap. 
 XXL, Sec. IV.) 
 
 It is the law of our Church, that it is not competent 
 for one General Assembly to revise or reverse the pro- 
 ceedings of a previous Assembly, taken in a judicial 
 case. This point, as stated above, has been settled by 
 the General Assembly in the appeal of Samuel Lowry, 
 Minutes 1824, page 115 ; case of T. F. Worrell, Minutes, 
 1864, page 398. 
 
 The case before us, the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America against the Kev. Charles A. 
 Briggs, D. D., is the same case, the appeal in which 
 was entertained and sustained by the General Assem- 
 bly of 1892, at Portland, Oregon. 
 
 By reference to the i^rinted Record in your hands, 
 
38 
 
 at page 87, you will find the mandate of tlie General 
 Assembly in that case, reversing the judgment of the 
 Presbytery of New York, entered on the 4th day of 
 November, 1891. 
 
 This order of the General Assembly remanded the 
 case to the Presbytery of New York, with directions 
 that the case should be brought to issue and tried on 
 the merits thereof. The mandate also directed that the 
 Presbytery should pass upon and determine the suffi- 
 ciency of the Charges and Specifications in form and 
 legal effect, and to permit the Prosecuting Committee 
 to amend the Charges and Specifications, not chang- 
 ing the general nature of the same. 
 
 The Prosecuting Committee, with the consent of the 
 Presbytery, the Appellee not objecting, filed amended 
 Charges and Specifications, which did not change the 
 general nature of the original charges. The fact that 
 the Presbytery threw out two of the amended charges, 
 Nos. lY. and YII., upon the mistaken ground that they 
 did not conform to the general nature of the original 
 charges, is made the basis of Specifications 1 and 11 
 under the first ground of the Appeal now pending. 
 
 By the mandate of the Assembly of 1892, the Pres- 
 bytery was restricted in the trial upon the merits to 
 the original charges or to amended charges, which did 
 not change the general nature of the original charges. 
 
 The fact that the Presbytery proceeded to trial upon 
 six out of eight of the amended charges, is conclusive 
 evidence, that the judgment now appealed from is in 
 the same judicial case that was entertained and sus- 
 tained at Portland, remanded to New York, there tried, 
 and from the final judgment in which this appeal was 
 taken. 
 
 This appeal is therefore an appeal in the same 
 judicial case as that decided by the General Assembly 
 of 1892, and there is no fact to justify the claim made 
 
39 
 
 by tlie Appellee that this is an appeal in a different 
 case, and that the precedents established in this judicial 
 case, by the Assembly of 1892, are not controlling. 
 
 All the points decided by the Portland Assembly of 
 1892, in the case of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America against the Rev. Charles A. 
 Briggs, D. D.,are decisions in this judicial case, under 
 the same title and with the same parties as the one, the 
 entertainment of which, is now under consideration. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the precedents above re- 
 ferred to, established by the Assemblies of 1824 and 
 1864, which remain unquestioned, absolutely preclude 
 this Assembly from attempting to revise or reverse the 
 action of the Assembly of 1892 upon any point, in this 
 judicial case, passed upon by that Assembly. 
 
 Action of Synod of New Yoek as to the Prose- 
 cuting Committee. 
 Subsequent to the proceedings in the Presbytery of 
 New York, on November 4, 1891, which resulted in 
 the judgment dismissing the case, the Kev. Francis 
 Brown, D. D., made complaint to the Synod of New 
 York, against the action of the Presbytery in sustaining 
 the ruling of the Moderator, that the Committee was a 
 Committee of Prosecution under Section 11 of the 
 Book of Discipline. 
 
 After the ten days provided for by Section 84 of the 
 Book of Discipline, had expired, and in some cases 
 months after, the names of a number of persons, 113 in 
 all, no one of whom had given notice of complaint, 
 were added to this complaint, oud it was claimed for 
 it, that the action of the Presbytery complained of, 
 was had in a nonjudicial case, and that, therefore, 
 under Section 85 of the Book of Discipline said paper, 
 with the additional signatures, purporting to be a com- 
 plaint, stayed the judicial proceedings until the final 
 issue of the case in the superior judicatory. 
 
40 
 
 This paper, purporting to be a complaint, was pre- 
 sented to the Synod of New York, at its session held 
 at Albany, New York, in October, 1892, and was 
 declared to be in order, but the Synod, after extended 
 discussion, decided not to issue the complaint, and by 
 a vote of 122 to 40 took the following action : 
 
 " In the matter of Judicial cases Nos. 3 and 4 (Dr. 
 Brown's complaint) the committee finds the complaints 
 to be in order, hut recommends that it is inexpedient 
 to take action at the ^present time for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 "1. The case, through the action of the General 
 Assembly and of the Presbytery of New York, is 
 again before the Presbytery, and the complainants will 
 there have their remedy in their own hands. 
 
 "2. Incase the remedy then be found insufficient, 
 they may afterwards have opportunity by appeal or 
 complaint to bring the case before Synod." 
 
 When the matter was again presented to the Pres- 
 bytery of New York, it was discovered that the com- 
 plainants did not "have their remedy in their own 
 hands," for the Presbytery, as hereinafter shown, 
 promptly, and for the second time, sustained the ruling 
 of the Moderator, which had been appealed from, as 
 to the status of the Prosecuting Committee. 
 
 Complaint against Action of the Synod of New 
 York, now pending before this Assembly. 
 A complaint was made to this Assembly and is now 
 pending before it, against the action of the Synod of New 
 York in declaring the said paper purporting to be a 
 complaint, to be in order, in respect of the 118 so-called 
 complainants, no one of whom had given notice of 
 complaint, as required by Section 84 of the Book of 
 Discipline, and whose signatures were added to the 
 paper purporting to be a complaint, after the expiration 
 of the ten days fixed by the Book of Discipline. 
 
41 
 
 Tlie complaint to the Assembly against the action of 
 the Synod of New York, last above referred to, brings 
 up to this Assembly the only question of the slightest 
 importance, in this case, now before the Synod. When 
 the question raised by that complaint, and the issues 
 in this appeal, have been considered all the questions 
 involved can be at the same time and finally dis- 
 posed of by the highest Court of our Church. 
 
 Final Action by New York Presbytery as to the 
 Status of the Prosecuting Committee. 
 
 When in compliance with the mandate of the General 
 Assembly the Presbytery of New York, on the 9th day 
 of November, 1892, proceeded with the trial, the 
 Appellee presented objections to the status, rights and 
 powers of the Prosecuting Committee and asked 
 the Presbytery to apply the remedy which the 
 Synod had said might be in its own hands. 
 
 Thereupon the following proceedings were had as 
 recorded at page 262 of Yol. 14 of the Records of the 
 Presbytery of New York : 
 
 * ' A point of order was here raised as to w^hether any- 
 *' thing is in order except the consideration of the spe- 
 ^^cific action of the General Assembly. 
 
 "The Moderator decided that the point of order was 
 ^ ' well taken. That the raising of the question of the 
 " status of the Prosecuting Committee and of its right 
 "to appear and continue the conduct of this case is not 
 ^'now in order for these reasons : 
 
 "1st. That this whole question was fally discussed 
 "and decided by Ihe Judicial Committee of the General 
 ^'Assembly. 
 
 "2d. That the recognition of the status of the Com- 
 " mittee and its powers as delined in the appeal were 
 ^'embodied in the Judicial Committee's report, recom- 
 " mending the entertainment of the appeal. 
 
42 
 
 "3d. That in tlie minutes of the General Assembly 
 "giving its findings in the case, the Committee' s status 
 "is clearly recognized. 
 
 "4th. That the protest recorded in the minutes of 
 "the General Assembly by those objecting to its action, 
 "was based on the fact, that its action in entertaining 
 "the appeal gave the committee the standing and 
 "powers claimed for it ; and 
 
 "Lastly. That the order sending the case again to 
 " this Presbytery, requiring us to proceed to pass upon 
 "and determine the sufficiency of the charges and 
 "specifications, as to form and legal effect, and to 
 "proceed with the trial, this being the single point 
 "before us to be acted upon, therefore the Moderator's 
 "decision is, that this question is out of order. 
 
 "An appeal to the house against the Moderator's 
 ** decision was then taken. On a vote being taken, a 
 * ' division was called for, which resulted in 73 to 58 in 
 "favor of the Moderator's decision." 
 
 By thus, a second time, sustaining the Moderator' s 
 ruling the Presbytery of New York gave a very decided 
 answer to the Ajjpellee's request. It confirmed its 
 previous action, and based the same upon the action 
 of the General Assembly of 1892, which fully sustained 
 the status, rights and powers of the Prosecuting Com- 
 mittee at every point. 
 
 In view of the above, it is not creditable to our intel- 
 ligence, nor loyal to the decisions of our highest Court,, 
 that we should give this matter further consideration. 
 
 An Alleged Constitutional Limitation. 
 
 Great Aveight has been given to a technical question 
 raised in the interest of the Appellee and of delay, based 
 upon a clause contained in the Fifth Amendment ta 
 the Constitution of the United States, which is as f oU 
 lows: ^ * * "Nor shall any person be subject 
 
43 
 
 for the same offense to be twice j)i^t in jeopardy of life 
 or limb." It has been claimed that this constitutional 
 provision prevents an appeal from the linal judgment 
 of the Presbytery of New York in this case, and that such 
 an appeal would place the Appellee's '' ecclesiastical 
 life " in jeopardy a second time. This somewhat ingen- 
 ious but inappropriate use of the term "ecclesiastical 
 life" seems to have confused the minds of some, as to 
 the character of proceedings under the Book of Disci- 
 pline. 
 
 The Ordination Vow a Covenant and Agreement. 
 
 When the Appellee was ordained as a minister, and 
 as a condition precedent to such ordination, certain 
 questions were addressed to him, among others the 
 following (Form of Government, Chapter XV., Sec- 
 tion XII.) : 
 
 "1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only 
 infallible rule of faith and practice ? 
 
 "2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Con- 
 fession of Faith of this Church, as containing the 
 system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures 1 
 
 "3. Do you approve of the government and disci- 
 pline of the Presbyterian Church in these United 
 States ? 
 
 "4. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in 
 the Lord ? 
 
 "6. Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in 
 maintaining the truths of the Gospel, and tlie purity 
 and peace of tlie Church ; whatever persecution or 
 opposition may arise unto you on that account ? " 
 
 To each of these questions the Appellee gave an 
 affirmative answer and these questions and answers 
 thenceforth were part of a sacred covenant, contract 
 
44 
 
 or agreement between the Appellee and tlie Presby- 
 terian Church and all the parties in interest. 
 
 The relation then established was a purely voluntary 
 one of contract or agreement. Good considera- 
 tions moved each of the parties and the questions and 
 answers established the agreement or meeting of the 
 minds of the parties. 
 
 This not a Criminal Case, but a Proceeding to 
 Determine whether the Appellee's Agree- 
 ment HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT. 
 
 This judicial proceeding is to determine whether that 
 covenant, contract or agreement of the Appellee has 
 been complied with or not. The inaccurate use of the 
 term "ecclesiastical life" cannot change the nature of 
 this proceeding under the Book of Discipline. 
 
 These are not criminal proceedings involving peril to 
 the life or limb of the Appellee. They are proceedings 
 to enforce a contract, or rather to determine whether 
 the contract has been maintained in all its integrity. 
 Preservation of ''ecclesiastical life" in this case means 
 simply the privilege to enjoy the benefits of a certain 
 contract. If it should be shown that the Appellee has 
 not maintained the contract in all its integrity, the 
 loss of his " ecclesiastical life " would mean simply 
 the loss of the benefits which he at one time enjoyed 
 under the contract which he had broken. 
 
 As a matter of law, the distinction upon which I am 
 insisting is so simple as to require only very brief illus- 
 tration. A citizen of the United States is engaged by 
 contract to perform certain services, for which he re- 
 ceives an official position and adequate compensation. 
 It is at length alleged, by the other party to the con- 
 ti'Ct, that such services have not been properly per- 
 formed, and the matter is brought into the Courts, the 
 bill praying that the contract, because of its non- 
 performance by the other part}^, should be cancelled or 
 
45 
 
 terminated. A decision is reached in the Court of first 
 resort, in favor of the citizen first alluded to, and the 
 other contracting party appeals. 
 
 Would the appellee, in such a case, be justified, or 
 could he successfully plead that the Constitution of 
 the United States protected him, and that he nci d 
 give no attention to the appeal ^ Might he claim that 
 the Constitution of the United States precluded the ap- 
 pellate Courts from considering a second time, on ap- 
 peal, the points involved in the alleged breach of 
 contract ? There is x)robably no lawyer in this country, 
 there is certainly no lawyer in tlii^ assembly, who 
 would answer these questions in the affirmative. 
 
 The failure of the appellee in such a case, to comply 
 with the terms of his contract, injures the other con- 
 tracting party. He may not wish or pray for damages ; 
 he simply asks for relief from a contract that has not 
 been fulfilled by the other party and from a relation 
 which has therefore become intolerable. But the ques- 
 tion whether the contract has been broken, is a proper 
 one for the appellate Court to consider in determining 
 whether the appellant is entitled to the relief asked 
 for. 
 
 The appellee, in such a case, might say that as he 
 was dependent upon the business position and income 
 secured through the contract, that his " business life" 
 and his "financial life" would be placed in jeojiardy 
 a second time by the appeal. But the twice-endangered 
 business life or financial life could not be made a 
 ground of objection to the apj)eal as such. 
 
 Not only every lawyer, but every man of affairs will 
 assent to that. What has been called a man's " eccle- 
 siastical life" is a matter of great importance, but it 
 should not be urged as a ground against an appeal 
 in a case where an ecclesiastical covenant is involved. 
 It would, indeed, be unfortunate if a higher code of 
 
46 
 
 ethics prevailed in the civil Courts of this country than 
 the code which is recognized in the courts of this 
 Church. 
 
 The Constitutional Limitation, above referred 
 to, does not apply in this case. 
 
 The provision of the amendment to the Constitution 
 referred to, is the outgrowth or remnant of the struggle 
 for security and safety on the part of the subject 
 against the despotic and arbitrary power so often exer- 
 cised by kings and rulers in the past, over their 
 subjects. It originated as a constitutional and very 
 proper safeguard to protect the subject against the 
 power of a sovereign. This provision was introduced 
 as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
 States, simply to guard against the power of the Federal 
 Government and the Federal Courts, at a time when 
 alarm was felt about the tendency towards Federal cen- 
 tralization of power. It is still an eminently wise con- 
 stitutional provision, and properly controls in the admin- 
 istration of justice in all criminal cases where the death 
 penalty or other serious legal penalty is enforced, but 
 it has no place or influence in the orderly enforcement 
 of discipline under the Constitution of a voluntary asso- 
 ciation like the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 No one is forced to accept the doctrines of the Pres- 
 byterian Church. No one is forced to remain in a 
 position where one is subject to its discipline. But 
 when any one has voluntarily entered into covenant or 
 agreement with that Church, he is honorably and 
 morally bound to submit to the orderly enforcement of 
 its law. So long as he remains in this ecclesiastical 
 fellowship and communion, it is not lawful or right to 
 invoke the provisions of any civil law or constitution 
 to delay the orderly enforcement of the discipline of 
 the Church, or to j)revent it. 
 
47 
 
 The Confessional Position as to Civil Laws and 
 Constitutions. 
 
 The Confession of Faith enforces this distinction 
 with the utmost clearness. Cliaj)ter XXIII., Sub- 
 section III., is as follows : " Civil magistrates may not 
 ^ ^ -^ ^t * ^ jj-^ ^Ijq least, interfere in matters of 
 faith. -• ^ ^ ^v ^ * And, as Jesus Christ hath 
 appointed a regular government and discipline in his 
 Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere 
 with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among 
 the voluntary members of any denomination of Chris- 
 tians, according to their own profession and belief." 
 
 Decision thereon of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. 
 
 This position so fully and clearly stated in the Con- 
 fession of Faith, has in effect, been adopted by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States in the leading case 
 of Watson against Jones, reported in 13 Wallace, pages 
 679-738. This case is commonly known as the Walnut 
 Street Church case and the opinion is given in full in 
 Moore's Digest, 1886, pages 251-262. 
 
 In this decision the Supreme Court of the United 
 States holds, that when the General Assembly as 
 the Supreme Court of the Presbyterian Church has 
 decided any question of doctrine or discipline accord- 
 ing to the Standards and Book of Discipline, the legal 
 tribunals must accept such decision as final as against 
 the decision of any Civil Court or Constitution, and 
 that the Civil Courts will not even look into or question 
 such decisions. This opinion of the Supreme Court of 
 the United States says : 
 
 '' There are in the Presbyterian system of ecclesiasti- 
 cal government, in regular succession, the Presbytery 
 over the session or local church, the Synod over the 
 
48 
 
 Presbytery and the General Assembly over all. 
 These are called in the language of the Church organs, 
 judicatories, and they entertain appeals from the de- 
 cisions of those below, and prescribe corrective meas- 
 ures in other cases." 
 
 "In this class of cases we think the rule of action 
 which should govern the civil courts, founded in a 
 broad and sound view of the relations of Church and 
 State under our system of laws, and supported by a 
 preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that, 
 whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or 
 ecclesiastical rule, custom or law, have been decided 
 by the highest of these church judicatories to which 
 the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must 
 accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in 
 their application to the case before them." 
 
 "The right to organize voluntary religious associa- 
 tions, to assist in the expression and dissemination of 
 any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the 
 decision of controverted questions of faith within the 
 association, and for the ecclesiastical government of 
 all the individual members, congregations and officers 
 within the general association, is unquestioned. All 
 who unite themselves to such a body, do so with 
 an implied consent to this government, and are bound 
 to submit to it. But it would be vain consent and 
 would lead to the total subversion of such religious 
 bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions 
 could ajDpeal to the secular Courts and have them 
 reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, 
 and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision 
 of questions arising among themselves, that those de- 
 cisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical 
 cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism 
 itself provides for.' ' 
 
49 
 
 The opinion of the Supreme Court continues as 
 follows : 
 
 ''In the case of Watson vs. Farris, 45 Missouri, 183, 
 that Court held t/iat whether a case was regularly or 
 irregularly before the Assembly^ loas a question lohich 
 the Assembly had the right to determine for itself\ 
 and no civil court could reverse, modify or impair its 
 action in a matter of merely ecclesiastical concern." 
 
 "We cannot better close this review of the authorities 
 than in the language of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- 
 vania in the case of tlie German Reformed Church vs. 
 Siebert, 5 Barr, 291 ; 'The decisions of ecclesiastical 
 courts, like every other judicial tribunal are final, as 
 they are the best judges of what constitutes an offence 
 against the word of God and the discipline of the 
 Church. Any other than those Courts must be in- 
 competent judges of matters of faith, discipline and 
 doctrine ; and civil courts if they should be so unwise 
 as to attempt to supervise their judgments on matters 
 which come within their jurisdiction, would only involve 
 themselves in a sea of uncertainty and doubt which 
 would do anything but improve either religion or good 
 morals ' .'' 
 
 This Decision the Law of the Land. 
 
 This decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States still stands. It has been frequently cited with 
 approval by the same Court and is the law of the land 
 upon the questions decided therein. This decision 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States makes final 
 and conclusive any decision reached by the General 
 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church as to matters 
 that concern theological controversy^ Church disci- 
 pline^ ecclesiastical government or the conformity of the 
 members of the Church to its Standards. 
 
 Even if the provision of the Constitution of the United 
 States referred to, did apply to proceedings under a 
 
50 
 
 Book of Discipline like tliat of the Presbyterian Clmrcli, 
 such a provision would not be in point. The Constitu- 
 tion of the United States declares, indeed, that no per- 
 son shall be subject to be put in jeopardy of life or 
 limb, twice for the same ofl'ence. But the Supreme 
 Court of the United States has held in ex-parte, Lange 
 18 Wallace, 163, that this constitutional provision was 
 mainly designed to prevent a second punishment for 
 the same crime or misdemeanor and not a second 
 trial. Where, as in this case, no punislwient has been 
 inflicted upon tJte Apyellee^ the Constitutional provision 
 is not to be invoked. It is not to interfere. It has refer- 
 ence only to restraints ui^on the general government, 
 and its courts. (Baker on the Constitution, page 182.) 
 
 [Here the argument was interrupted by adjourn- 
 ment.] 
 
 Before resuming my argument at the point of inter- 
 ruption at the adjournment of this afternoon, I should 
 say something as to the concluding part of Dr. Briggs' 
 argument. 
 
 The declaration of his faith made by the Appellee 
 at the close of his plea, may or may not be fully in 
 accord with the accepted forms of belief in the Presby- 
 terian Church. One x>oint should be noted in it, how- 
 ever. He has modified his answer to the questions of 
 Union Seminary, for he now declares that he accepts 
 the Scriptures as true, as to historical facts, a modifica- 
 tion sufficiently broad to allow of acceptance even by 
 one who believes that Jonah, or Ruth, or Esther, or 
 Job, or all of them, are unhistorical characters. 
 
 In any event, the Appellee's confession here made, 
 is no stronger than that which he made just be- 
 fore delivering the Inaugural Address, so that the 
 question remains as it did, before this new statement 
 was altered as it has been to-day. In the Appellee's 
 judgment his inaugural is fully in accord with the con- 
 
51 
 
 fession. The question for you to decide, is whether 
 or not the two can be in full accord. 
 
 The Appellee referred sharply to the fact that on 
 page 6 of the Record the Appellants had omitted the 
 series of questions and answers included in the pre- 
 amble to the resolution. Stars were placed in the 
 record to indicate an omission, as should always be 
 done when an extract is not full and complete. 
 
 An examination of the page will show to any candid 
 man that everything covering the matter at issue is 
 given there, and given in fullness. That matter was 
 introduced, not to tell anything respecting Dr. Briggs' 
 soundness or unsoundness, nor even to tell anything 
 tliat Dr. Briggs had said, but solely and only to pfove 
 that an attempt was made to dismiss the case because 
 of statements made by Dr. Briggs, not on the floor of 
 the Presbytery, 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 
 tlie Presbyter3^ 
 
 With reference to the confession or declaration as 
 made by the Appellee to-day, I was very glad to hear 
 it. I have heard it in somewhat similar forms on 
 other occasions. But those categorical answers were 
 given and were replied to, after the Inaugural Address 
 had been delivered, but before the proceedings in the 
 New York Presbytery were begun. 
 
 During the first trial declarations of principles were 
 made by the Appellee and the case was dismissed. 
 Keep in mind the only thing that these proceedings 
 are based upon is the Inaugural Address. 
 
 If any one has the volume in his possession, and will 
 look at the preface of the third edition of Dr. Briggs' 
 Inaugural Address, which bears imprint or date of 
 November 5th, 1891, the day immediately following 
 
52 
 
 the first trial in Presbytery— the day after the case 
 liad been dismissed — he Avill find these words : 
 
 "I 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 it seems to me wise 
 to republish the address in a second edition under my 
 own responsibility, with some additional notes and 
 explanations." 
 
 This third edition contains the charges made against 
 me before the Presbytery of New York, Oct. 5th, and 
 my answer thereto of Nov. 4th. 
 
 The fourth edition of the Inaugural, which is dated 
 in the following year, June 24th, 1892, contains the 
 above words, reaffirming at that date the declarations 
 of the Inaugural Address. 
 
 The charges are based upon the Inaugural Address 
 only ; and the Inaugural Address, as you see by the 
 preface of the succeeding editions, stands not re- 
 tracted, not withdrawn — stands just as delivered. 
 
 I will now resume, Fathers and Brethren, at the 
 point at which the argument was interrupted. 
 
 The Alleged Plea that an Acquittal by a Lower 
 Court Bars the Right of Appeal. 
 
 It has been frequently claimed of late, that '' by the 
 law of the Presbyterian Church the acquittal of an 
 accused person by a lower court, bars the right of ap- 
 peal to a higher court." 
 
 Such a claim is not true in fact nor sound in law. 
 Some have been led into mistake in this matter from 
 not distinguishing the very marked difference between 
 some of the provisions of law and the procedure fol- 
 lowed in civil and ecclesiastical trials. 
 
 By the Amended Cliarges and Specifications in this 
 case, the accused was charged with delivering an In- 
 
53 
 
 augural Address, in which it was claimed, that he 
 taught doctrines which are contrary to the Holy Scrip- 
 tures and the Standards of the Presbyterian Church. 
 Upon the trial the accused admitted the fact that he 
 had delivered the Address containing the Avords set out 
 in the Specifications to the Charges. But at the same 
 time he made a denial, which, in the Civil Courts, 
 would be called a demurrer, as to the legal effect of 
 the teaching with which he was charged. 
 
 In a trial in a civil court, the facts as to what he had 
 taught, which were admitted, would have been passed 
 upon by the jury ; the legal effect of the teaching which 
 he denied, w^ould have been passed upon by the Court. 
 It is at this point that confusion comes to some minds. 
 I ask you to carefully distinguish the difference be- 
 tween the organization and practice of the civil and 
 ecclesiastical courts. 
 
 Under our Presbyterian polity, the members of a 
 Judicatory are both jurymen and judges. By the 
 admissions of the accused, that he did deliver the 
 address and did use the words charged, the case 
 passed at once out of the hands of the members of the 
 Judicatory in their capacity of jurymen, for the facts 
 were all settled by the admissions of the accused. The 
 questions of law had been already determined when 
 the Presbytery accepted the charges and specifica- 
 tions, as sufficient in form and legal effect, if proved, 
 to be an offence and sufficient to put the accused on 
 his defence. (Records Presbytery of N. Y., Vol. 14, 
 page 369.) 
 
 After hearing the arguments on both sides the 
 Judicatory went into private session and determined 
 that the accused should be " fully acquitted." There- 
 upon the case was taken on appeal to the Supreme 
 Court of the Church on the legal questions involved. 
 
 It would not be proper for me, at this time, to discuss 
 the further steps in the appeal, but it is sufl3.cient to 
 
54 
 
 say tliat while sucli proceedings are seldom taken in 
 onr ecclesiastical Conrts, con^esponding proceedings 
 are taken every day in onr Federal and State Conrts. 
 
 As the Form of Government and the Book of Disci- 
 pline of the Presbyterian Church make full and exact 
 provision for appeals to the General Assembly on 
 doctrinal and constitutional questions, making no dis- 
 tinction as to whether the decision appealed from was 
 for or against the accused, no good, sound or legal 
 reason exists why such an appeal having been taken 
 should not be entertained by this Assembly. 
 
 It is affirmed that, if this right of appeal, espe- 
 cially appeal from a verdict of acquittal, in the name 
 of the Church, be granted to the Committee of Prose- 
 cution, it will be in gross violation of the Constitution, 
 and result in the rankest kind of injustice. Surely this 
 objection is not intended seriously. How can that be a 
 violation of the constitution for which the constitution 
 makes express provision ^ The absence of precedent for 
 the exercise of this right by the Committee of Prosecu- 
 tion, does not make its exercise unconstitutional, for, 
 as has been stated already, there may have been neither 
 time nor occasion for making precedents on this point. 
 To affirm that everything for which there cannot 
 be found a precedent is unconstitutional, is to elevate 
 precedent above the Constitution, and to deny the pos- 
 sibility of constitutional reforms or changes. 
 
 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church does not 
 regard the verdict of acquittal in the lower Judicatory 
 as a completion of the case, in the sense that the jeop- 
 ardy ceases with such acquittal. An accused person 
 has never been in jeopardy, technically, until the case 
 reaches Synod, in matters of ordinary discipline, or 
 reaches the Assembly in cases of doctrine and Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 This right of appeal from any decision of an 
 inferior judicatory by any of the parties has never been 
 
55 
 
 seriously questioned. It has been uniformly exercised. 
 Under the Old Book, ^'a party aggrieved," and all 
 persons who have submitted to a regular trial in an 
 inferior, may appeal to a higher judicatory. Any one 
 or more of a minority had the right to appeal from 
 any linal judgment of a lower to a higher judicatory. 
 Moore's Digest, 1878, p. 548, says: ^'Before the 
 "• adoption of the Constitution in its present form, 
 " in 1831, no distinction was made between an appeal 
 " and complaint. The Common form was, 'we appeal 
 " and complain.' Under this broad title an]/ decision 
 '' lohatever was carried by any iJarties from the lower 
 " courts to the higher. Appeals are limited by the 
 " present Constitution to the original parties to a case 
 " who may deem themselves aggrieved, and to cases 
 " which have been judicially decided by a lower judi- 
 " catory. Under this head, however, are included all 
 " cases of whatever character which have been the 
 " subject of a decision by an inferior judicatory." 
 
 The assembly of 1883 endorsed the principle of appeal 
 from a sentence of acquittal, in the case of Mr. Griffith. 
 (See Moore's Digest, 1873, p. 548.) 
 
 ''The Synod of New York decided that the death of 
 ' ' Rev. Mr. Griffith should be no bar in the way of the 
 " prosecution of an appeal by his prosecutor from the 
 " decision of the Presbytery of Bedford, acquitting 
 "Mr. Griffith. With these (this) exceptions (excep- 
 " tion) the Committee recommended that the Records 
 " be approved. Their report was adopted. Minutes 
 "1833, p. 400." (Moore's Digest, 1873, p. 548.) 
 
 In the case last referred to the Synod of New York 
 decided that a prosecutor had the right to appeal from 
 the decision of the Presbyter}^ acquitting the accused, 
 and that part of the Synod's proceedings the Assembly 
 of 1838 ai^proved. 
 
 A well-known Elder of our Church, when recently 
 discussing this question, aptly says: "It has always 
 
56 
 
 " been the law of the Church that the prosecutor, at 
 " least in judicial cases involving doctrine and consti- 
 " tutional law, may take an appeal from the decision of 
 " the Court in which the case originated, to the Supe- 
 '' rior Courts, although the decision in the lower Court 
 " may have acquitted the accused of the charge pre- 
 " ferred against him ; and that up to 1821 any one or 
 " more of a minority had the riglit to appeal from any 
 " decision whatever of a lower Court to a higher. Yet 
 " no one ever claimed or imagined until now, that 
 " there was the slightest injustice in this. On the con- 
 " trary, it was recognized as the only way in which 
 " doctrinal and constitutional questions could be 
 '' authoritatively determined. 
 
 " In view of these facts I think that it will be ad- 
 " mitted that the right of a prosecutor to appeal to a 
 " superior Court from a judgment of acquittal in an 
 " inferior Court, is not a novelty, an innovation, sought 
 " for the iirst time to be made a feature of our Church 
 " discipline." (Open letter of William Ernst, Esq., to 
 Prof. Willis J. Beecher, D. D., in the " Presbyterian," 
 April, 1893.) 
 
 An Appeal direct feom the Presbytery to the 
 Assembly, being allowed by the Book of 
 Discipline, is regular. 
 
 This is not the ordinary, but the extraordinary, 
 mode of procedure, and is to be taken only for special 
 reasons. But it should be distinctly noticed that 
 the extraordinary feature does not render it irregular, 
 since the Constitution provides for it. 
 
 Section 102 of the Book of Discipline reads : " Appeals 
 " are, generally, to be taken to the judicatory imme- 
 '' diately superior to that appealed from." The use of 
 the word "generally" leaves room for exceptional 
 cases, in which " the judicatory immediately superior " 
 may be passed by ; and this is no novelty ; it was not 
 
57 
 
 introduced by those who remodelled the Book ; it was 
 in the old Book ; it is part of the time-honored practice 
 of our church. 
 
 According to Section 70 of the Book of Discipline, 
 there are four ways in which a cause may be carried 
 from a lower to a higher judicatory, viz. : General 
 Review and Control, Reference, Complaint and Appeal. 
 Sections 71 and 83 make it plain that Review and 
 Control and Complaints must invariably be by or to 
 the next superior judicatory. 
 
 But it is different with References and Appeals. 
 Section 77 states that a Reference is "made by an 
 '' inferior to a superior judicatory," and Section 94 
 that an appeal is "from an inferior to a superior judi- 
 catory." In both cases the language of the Book care- 
 fully refrains from naming the judicatory next supe- 
 rior, as in the case of Review and Control, and of 
 Complaints. The next superior judicatory may or 
 may not be resorted to in case of a reference or an 
 appeal. 
 
 These provisions of the Book of Discipline conform 
 with the directions of the Form of Government. By 
 Chapter XI., Section IV., of the Form of Government, 
 the Synod is debarred from giving a final decision on 
 matters which affect the doctrine and constitution of 
 the Church. I refer to this here particularly for the 
 reason that an overture has come to this Assembly, 
 from some of the Presbyteries, in which the Assembly 
 is urged not to entertain this appeal, as that would be 
 " an ignoring of that important body, the Synod, and 
 " a virtual slight upon synodical privileges and 
 " dignity." But how can Synod be ignored, or its 
 privileges and dignity be slighted by withholding from 
 it a matter respecting which it cannot make a final 
 decision ? The appellants have disclaimed any intention 
 to ignore the Synod, or to cast a slight upon its 
 privileges and dignity. 
 
58 
 
 The rights, privileges and dignity of the Synod of 
 New York are not touched in any way by direct appeal 
 to the Assembly, since neither that nor any other Synod 
 has the constitutional power to settle doctrinal or con- 
 stitutional questions for the whole Church. Besides, 
 the fact, pointed out in the appeal, that all but one of 
 the thirty-one Presbyteries of the Synod of New York 
 will now, in the Assembly, have a voice in the final 
 settlement of these questions, should have due consid- 
 eration. In no other way can the Synod of New 
 York exert so large an iniluence in the final deter- 
 mination of this matter. 
 
 The Constitution (Form of Government, Chapter XL, 
 Section IV.), in express terms limits the powers of the 
 Synod by providing that its decision shall be final, 
 only, in cases which "do not affect the doctrine or con- 
 stitution of the church.'' Such a constitutional limita- 
 tion does not ignore or reflect upon the dignity of the 
 Synod. 
 
 No intelligent man would claim that the provisions 
 of the Constitution of the United States (Article YII., 
 Section I.), that "All bills for raising revenue shall 
 originate in the House of Representatives," is a reflec- 
 tion upon the character or dignity of the Senate of the 
 United States. This provision was made so as to carry 
 out consistently, the theory upon which a Constitution 
 providing for a complete system of political govern- 
 ment was based. 
 
 So this constitutional limitation upon the power of 
 the Synod, not to make final decisions upon doctrinal 
 and constitutional questions, was most properly made 
 to secure a consistent, fair, well-rounded system of 
 ecclesiastical government. 
 
 If time permitted, this might be illustrated in many 
 ways, but one example will be suflicient. When an 
 effort was made to revise the Confession of Faith, in 
 
69 
 
 compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Form 
 of Government the overtures in relation to the pro- 
 posed doctrinal chan<^es, were sent down, not to the 
 Synods, but to the Presbyteries, and tlie answers of the 
 Presbyteries were transmitted, not through or by way 
 of the Synods, but directly to the General Assembly. 
 
 No one pretends to claini that such a constitutional 
 proceeding is a slight upon the character or dignity 
 of the Synods, It is the constitutional method of 
 dealing with overtures relating to doctrinal changes. 
 
 In exactly the same way the constitution provides 
 that appeals in judicial cases, relating to doctrine, 
 need not go to the Synod, but may go directly to the 
 General Assembly. 
 
 There is no jnstification in fact or law, for the 
 statements which have been made, first, that tliis 
 appeal should not, as a matter of right, be brought 
 directly to the General Assembly, or, second^ that in 
 acting within the limits of constitutional authority, the 
 Prosecuting Committee, representing the entire Church, 
 have intentionally ignored the powers or prerogatives, 
 or reflected upon the character and dignity of the 
 Synod of New York. 
 
 This case, as such, has never been before the Synod of 
 New York. That Synod has not assumed jurisdiction 
 of this case. All that it has ever done is to declare in 
 order, two certain complaints which relate to collateral 
 questions, to give to these complaints the legal effect 
 claimed for them by the Complainants they had under 
 Section 85 of the Book of Discipline to allege, that they 
 were not taken in the judicial case^ although they 
 claimed, as soon as the complaints were made, that the 
 judicial case was thereby stayed. 
 
 The Synod of New York has never received or enter- 
 tained, or heard in its official capacity, of the case of 
 The Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
 
60 
 
 America against the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D. 
 Consequently, in taking this Appeal to the G-eneral 
 Assembly, there is no intended slight to the Synod of 
 New York ; there is nothing that could be reasonably 
 construed into such a slight. In coming to the General 
 Assembly, the Appellant is doing simply what the 
 Constitution says it may do, and Avhat, as representing 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States, it was 
 the duty of the Prosecuting Committee to do. The 
 Committee would have subjected themselves, very 
 properly, to censure from this body, if they had taken 
 any other course. If this Court should, in its wise dis- 
 cretion, think that this matter should go to the Synod, 
 the first steps toward that result must be to entertain 
 this appeaL You cannot act or take any act in dis- 
 posing of this matter until you have tirst voted to 
 entertain the appeal. Until all preliminary and juris- 
 dictional questions have been settled and jurisdiction 
 has been assumed, this Court cannot make any order 
 as to the disposition of the case. When you have 
 taken the vote to entertain the appeal, then the 
 members of the Court should consider the obligation 
 placed upon them by the Constitution of this Church, 
 to dispose of this case in such manner as will conserve 
 the truth and best protect the interest of the whole 
 Church. 
 
 As Commissioners to this Gfeneral Assembly you 
 are under very solemn obligations and responsibilities. 
 You have not come here to act in obedience to special 
 resolutions of your respective presbyteries, if any such 
 may have been passed, upon questions which may 
 come before this General Assembly. 
 
 You have been called to this high court by the man- 
 date of the Constitution of our Church. You are mem- 
 bers of a supreme Court of Commissioners, each member 
 bearing, not a resolution of instructions as to how he 
 
61 
 
 shall vote upon questions arising liere, but which have 
 not come judicially before your respective Presbyteries. 
 
 You bear a solemn commission to this Assembly, 
 which by its express terms authorizes and directs you 
 *' to consult, vote, and determine on all things that may 
 ''come before that body, according to the iDrinciples and 
 "constitution of this Church, and the word of Grod," 
 and not according to anything else. (Form of Govern- 
 ment, Chapter XXII., Section II. Minutes 1877, 
 page 577). 
 
 Section XII. of the Form of Government directs 
 that ' ' the General Assembly shall receive and issue all 
 " appeals, complaints, and references that affect the 
 " doctrine or constitution of the Church, which may 
 " be regularly brought before them from the inferior 
 " judicatories, * ^ * and they shall constitute 
 " the bond of union, peace, correspondence and mu- 
 " tual confidence among all our churches." Accord- 
 ing to Section V. of the same Chapter, "To the 
 " General Assembly also belongs the power of deciding 
 " in all controversies respecting doctrine and disci- 
 " pline ; of reproving, warning, or bearing testimony 
 "against error in doctrine; ^- -^ ^ of suppressing 
 " schismatical contentions and disputations; "^ * and 
 " the promotion of charity, truth and holiness, through 
 " all the churches under their care." The constitution 
 puts especial responsibility on the General Assembly, 
 respecting all matters which affect the doctrine, dis- 
 cipline, the purity and peace of the Church. 
 
 It is very evident then, that the framers of our Book 
 of Discipline and of the Form of Government, inten- 
 tionally left the way open for passing the intermediate 
 judicatories, so that cases affecting the doctrine and 
 constitution of the Church, might be taken directly 
 to the Assembly, if such a course seemed necessary. 
 When, therefore, we come to the Assembly with our 
 
62 
 
 appeal we are following the constitutional method of 
 procedure, for which precedents are not wanting. 
 
 The General Assembly of 1824, in answer to a peti- 
 tion of certain members of the Tammany Street Church 
 of Baltimore, stated : " It is unquestionably the priv- 
 " ilege of individuals and members of the Presbyterian 
 " Church, when they think they see the peace, purity, 
 ' ' or prosperity of the Church in danger, either from an 
 '' individual, or from an inferior court, to apply to the 
 *' General Assembly, in an orderly manner, for redress 
 ''and direction." (Minutes 1824, p. 113.) 
 
 The Assembly of 1833 (Minutes 1833, p. 396), re- 
 sponding to an overture from the Presbytery of Bal- 
 timore in reference to the practice of inferior judica- 
 tories in carrying appeals and complaints directly to 
 the Assembly, adopted the following resolution: 
 ''That the constitution of our Church is so explicit that 
 *' it requires no order of the Assembly in relation to 
 " the case brought to view in this overture." Dr. 
 Moore, in the Presbyterian Digest, 1886, p. 740, states 
 in reference to this deliverance, that "the principle 
 "guiding the Assembly seems to be that where there 
 "is no sufficient reason for passing the next su^Derior 
 "court, the case should go there. But where good 
 "reasons for carrying it directly to the Assembly are 
 "assigned, it will be entertained." 
 
 The uniform practice of the General Assembly, in 
 judicial cases, has been to receive appeal coming to it 
 without first going to Synod, if good reasons were 
 adduced. 
 
 1. The Assembly of 1816 (Minutes 1816, p. 626) 
 thought it reasonable to receive the appeal of the Rev. 
 George Bourne from the Presbytery of Lexington, on 
 the ground that he preferred to be tried by the Assem- 
 bly rather than by the Synod (Baird, p. 166). And the 
 Assembly of 1818 refused to approve the minutes of the 
 
63 
 
 Synod of Virginia expressing censure on the Presbytery 
 of Lexington for allowing; the appeal of Mr. Bourne to 
 pass the Synod. (See Baird, i\ 152.) 
 
 2. In the Assembly of 1883 (Minutes 1883, p. 617) 
 the Judicial Committee reported that since the Rev. 
 W. W. McLane had not given sufficient reasons for 
 coming direct to the Assembly with his appeal from 
 the decision of the Presbytery of Steubenville, the 
 case and the paxiers pertaining to it be referred to the 
 Synod of Ohio ; but the Assembly declined to adopt 
 the report, and returned it to the Judicial Committee 
 with instruction "to prepare and issue the case before 
 the Assembly." (Moore's Presbyterian Digest, 1886, 
 p. 741.) 
 
 3. The Assembly of 1884 stated, in reference to the 
 appeal of the Rev. Jared M. Chavis, from the Presbytery 
 of Atlantic, " that the ai3pellant has shown a sufficient 
 reason for bringing his appeal to the General Assembly, 
 without first going to the Synod of Atlantic." They 
 reversed the decision of the Presbytery, and then, since 
 no testimony had been taken by the Presbytery, 
 referred the case to the Synod, with instructions to 
 take the proper action in the premises. (Minutes 1884, 
 p. 108.) 
 
 I call attention to this citation, as it is, I believe, the 
 only judicial case, since the revision of our Book of 
 Discipline, which has been sent down by the Assembly 
 to Synod. This exceptional action strongly confirms, 
 if it does not comxDletely establish, our position, that 
 a judicial case involving doctrine cannot be sent down 
 by the Assembly to Synod. 
 
 The charges in the Chavis case were for alleged im- 
 morality — a case in which the decision of Synod is final. 
 In that case the Presbytery had failed in its duty as a 
 trial court. The appeal disclosed such irregularities in 
 the matter of discipline that the General Assembly 
 
64 
 
 sent a special committee to visit the Presbytery of 
 Atlantic, to investigate and do anything in its power to 
 correct the same. The Minutes of the Assembly (1884, 
 p. 108) declare "that the appellant had shown a suffi- 
 cient reason for bringing his appeal to the General 
 Assembly without first going to the Synod of Atlantic." 
 But as the Form of Government makes the decision of 
 the Synod final in all such cases, the Chavis case was 
 returned to the Synod tor action, as should have been 
 done in a case involving moral and not doctrinal ques- 
 tions. 
 
 If this case should be referred by this Assembly, to 
 the Synod of New York, and the majority of that 
 Synod should be unwilling to take up and give full 
 consideration to it, they might be ready to listen to the 
 technical objection that the Synod would have no 
 authority to hear the case, upon the ground that the 
 right of appeal to Synod had been lost, because notice 
 of appeal had not been given within the ten days 
 fixed by Section 96 of the Book of Discipline. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the final adjudication of 
 the case would be deferred for two years, because a 
 complaint against the actions of Synod on this purely 
 technical ground would have to be settled by the next 
 Assembly, the case again returned to Synod, and the 
 appeal from Synod's decision would come before the 
 Assembly tw^o years hence. 
 
 I only make this as a suggestion as to what is likely 
 to happen in case this Venerable Body should, for any 
 reason, take a course which I hope I have convinced 
 the Commissioners is not warranted by the facts or 
 by the Constitution of the Church. 
 
 4. In the New School Assembly of 1839 a motion to 
 send the appeal of Mr. Lewis Tappan from the Third 
 Presbytery of New York to the Synod, was lost, and 
 the appeal was then entertained and issued. (Moore's 
 Digest, 1st Ed., p. 225.) 
 
65 
 
 These examples sufficiently indicate what the practice 
 of the Assembly has been with regard to entertaining 
 appeals which have come to them without having first 
 been before the Synod. Whenever appellants have 
 given good reasons, the Assembly has received the 
 appeal. 
 
 The contention that, while an appeal of the defendant 
 may thus be received for special reasons, no such 
 privilege can be accorded to that of a prosecutor, intro- 
 duces a distinction which is not recognized by the 
 constitution of the Church. The right of appeal is 
 secured to both of the original parties without distinc- 
 tion. We have already shown that in a trial for 
 heresy the Church has far greater interests at stake 
 than any defendant can possibly have, and is liable to 
 suffer vastly more from delay than he. The Presby- 
 terian Church has an equal right, with the humblest as 
 well as with the most distinguished of its members, to 
 make use of all constitutional provisions for the preser- 
 vation of its interests. 
 
 There are special reasons why this appeal 
 should be received by the assembly with- 
 OUT HAVING FIRST BEEN TAKEN TO THE SyNOD 
 
 of New York. 
 
 In addition to the reasons set out in the appeal, the 
 following may be stated : 
 
 1. The appeal relates to doctrines which are abso- 
 lutely fundamental to our system. 
 
 The attempt to convince the Church that the doc- 
 trines at stake are non-essential or unimportant, and 
 that the contention about them is but a "strife of 
 " tongues," has not been successful. The Christian 
 world, and especially the people of our own com- 
 munion, very largely consider them vital. From the 
 time when Dr. Briggs delivered his Inaugural Address 
 until now, a strong conviction in all parts of our Church 
 
has been growing stronger that his blow struck at fun- 
 damental doctrines. 
 
 The sole supremacy of the Holy Scriptures in mat- 
 ters of faith, the veracity, genuineness and trustwor- 
 thiness of that Scripture, and the question whether 
 the process of redemption is limited to this life, or is 
 to be extended to the world beyond the grave, are in- 
 volved in this discussion. These are considered vitally 
 important by evangelical Protestants, and particularly 
 by Presbyterians, since they concern not only our 
 creed, but also our entire method of presenting the 
 Gospel. The publication of Dr. Briggs' views has 
 given rise to widespread alarm and contention. It is 
 the duty of the Assembly to receive and issue this 
 appeal for the sake of the purity and peace of the 
 Church. 
 
 ISTo Presbytery or Synod can settle these doctrines for 
 the Presbyterian Church; the Assembly alone rep- 
 resents that Church ; it is the only court to which 
 this appeal should come. Since the Assembly is not 
 a court of original jurisdiction, it was necessary that 
 the matter should first be passed on by such a court ; 
 but now, since it has been tried by a court of original 
 jurisdiction, there is no reason why it should be sent 
 to another inferior judicatory which, under the Con- 
 stitution, cannot render a final decision. 
 
 2. The case is fully ripe for final judgment by this 
 Assembly. If the Commissioners were not acquainted 
 with the merits of the case, there might be reason for 
 delay. But, aside from the fact that the questions 
 involved have been before the Church for more than 
 two years, and have been discussed both by the secular 
 and the religious press, the Defence of Dr. Briggs and 
 the Arguments of the Committee of Prosecution have 
 been put into the hands of all of our ministers, and of 
 many of our elders ; there is good reason for concluding 
 that the brethren are well informed on the subjects 
 
67 
 
 involved in tlie case. Like the children of Issachar, 
 the members of this Assembly have ^'understanding 
 " of the times, to know what Israel ought to do." 
 
 3. It is imperatively necessary that a final decision 
 in this case be reached at the earliest possible date. 
 This is requisite alike for the purity and peace, and 
 the prosperity and usefulness of the Church. Debate, 
 contention, and uncertainty should not be protracted 
 any longer than is absolutely necessary. Only a little 
 while ago, all seemed to be agreed, respecting this 
 matter. 
 
 Not a few of those urging the now famous ''peace 
 and work" plea were so deeply impressed with the 
 fact that this conflict interferes seriously with the peace 
 and work of our churches, that they desired the mat- 
 ter to be dropped immediately after the Presbytery of 
 New York had rendered its decision in this case. 
 
 We did not agree with them in detail, believing that 
 it would be better to wait four months longer, bring 
 the case to this Assembly, and obtain a decision which 
 would be more potential in allaying the unrest and 
 disquiet of our people than that of the Presbytery 
 of Wew York could possibly be. 
 
 But we agree with them as to the necessity of dis- 
 posing of this matter finally and authoritatively as 
 soon as possible ; and since the Assembly alone can 
 render a final and authoritative decision on questions 
 of this kind, we ask it to render that decision here, and 
 at this time. 
 
 Consistency is not the distinctive quality of those 
 brethren, who less than four months ago insisted with 
 intense earnestness that, for the sake of peace, work 
 and liberty, the discussion should cease at once. They 
 now insist with a zeal no less earnest, that, to guard the 
 interests of our beloved Church, the case should be 
 delayed another year, and first be sent to the Synod 
 
68 
 
 of New York. If their judgment of four montlis ago- 
 was correct, then their present judgment cannot be, 
 for no evident change of sentiment in either Church 
 or defendant has taken place since that time. 
 
 But why this determined purpose to keep this case 
 from coming before the General Assembly, and to send it 
 to the Synod ? There would be reason in this were it a 
 case respecting morality, for then the Synod would 
 have the constitutional right to make a final decision. 
 It cannot do so in this case, since it involves the 
 doctrines of the Church, which the Assembly only 
 can finally decide. This shows that there is no 
 desire, on the part of those just referred to, to 
 secure a settlement of the matter at issue by the 
 only body which constitutionally can settle it for the 
 Church. The prerogatives and privileges of our judi- 
 catories have been mentioned ; but the court, whose 
 prerogatives, privileges and dignity have been attacked 
 in connection with this case, is not the Synod of New 
 York, but the General Assembly itself. 
 
 So earnest is the attempt to keep this case from com- 
 ing before the Assembly for decision, that the disrup- 
 tion of the Church is threatened if the Assembly 
 should entertain and issue it. But this threat argues 
 on the one hand, conscious weakness on the part of 
 those who make it, and on the other, a deliberate in- 
 tention to unduly influence the Assembly so as to 
 prevent it from giving an honest expression of opinion. 
 
 A wise and manly settlement of this case by the As- 
 sembly will purify and strengthen our Church and be 
 the beginning of a long period of peace and prosperity. 
 
 4. This case involves the legal construction of the 
 ordination vow of every minister, elder and deacon in 
 our Church ; it involves what they may believe and 
 teach as the faith of the Church, under the terms of 
 that vow. The Presbytery of New York has decided 
 
69 
 
 in tlie case of Dr. Briggs that a Presbyterian minister, 
 elder or deacon may believe and teach, in harmony 
 with that vow, certain doctrines. The Presbytery of 
 Cincinnati has held in the case of Dr. H. S. Smith that 
 certain of these views cannot be taught without a 
 violation of the ordination vow. What the faith of 
 the Church, as to the fundamental doctrines involved in 
 this case, is, and what is embraced within the terms of 
 the ordination vow, and the liberty in teaching allowed 
 by the Church, can only be determined by the General 
 Assembly. 
 
 The importance of an immediate decision of these 
 matters will be recognized at once, when we con- 
 sider that during the coming year at least two 
 hundred and fifty ministers will be received into our 
 Church and from three to five thousand elders and 
 deacons elected and ordained. Those ministers, elders 
 and deacons who take the ordination vow, according 
 to the decision of the New York Presbytery in this 
 case, have a right to believe, until that decision is 
 reversed, that they can hold the views of Dr. Briggs 
 and teach them without transgressing the limits of 
 liberty allowed under our Constitution to scholarship 
 and opinion. 
 
 Is it fair or just to leave the terms of the ordination 
 vow and the doctrines involved in this case, unsettled 
 for another year, for this would be the result of not 
 entertaining the appeal or, after it has been entertained, 
 sending it to the Synod ? Would it be right or honest 
 to permit ministers, elders and deacons to enter the 
 Church during the next year, believing, as they would 
 have a right to believe, with the judgment of the New 
 York Presbytery unreversed, that, under the terms of 
 their ordination vow, they can believe and teach the 
 views held by Dr. Briggs ? Then, in case the Assembly 
 of 1894 should reverse the judgment of New York 
 Presbytery, it would place those who have become 
 
70 
 
 ministers, elders and deacons in the position of being 
 compelled either to renounce their views, or to retire 
 from the Church, or subject themselves to discipline to 
 expel them from the Church. 
 
 The Church, in all its agencies, must go on, it must 
 license more ministers, elect and ordain more elders 
 and deacons. If no other consideration existed than 
 this, it would be of paramount importance. Fairness 
 and justice to those whom the Church invites into 
 official station would seem to require this Judicatory 
 to entertain this appeal and determine what the Church 
 holds upon the fundamental questions at issue. 
 
 5. As a final reason why the Assembly should enter- 
 tain this appeal now, we urge that great and wide- 
 spread injury is certain to come from protracted delay. 
 It will tend to unsettle faith, especially among our 
 young people ; it will injuriously affect the train- 
 ing of our young men for the ministry, and will result 
 in the sjpread of false doctrines. 
 
 The Presbytery of New York, in the final judgment, 
 says: "There are truths and forms with regard to 
 "which men of good character may differ." No one 
 disputes that. But the statement necessarily implies 
 that there are also truths and forms in regard to which 
 good men, especially ministers of the Presbyterian 
 Church, should not differ ; and the the question is 
 whether or not the truths and forms contained in this 
 case are of that kind. The great majority of Presby- 
 terians believe that they are. The verdict of the Pres- 
 bytery of New York confirms that belief rather than 
 otherwise ; for, while they acquit him, they distinctly 
 disapprove the critical and theological views of Dr. 
 Briggs, for which he has been put on the defence. 
 Why disapprove these truths and forms if Presby- 
 terian Ministers and elders may differ in regard to 
 them? 
 
71 
 
 If the doctrines presented by Prof. Briggs be errone- 
 ous, as we verily believe, tlien, through delay, ''heret- 
 ical opinions" are sure to "gain ground," and our 
 Church will be affected injuriously through the con- 
 tinuance of uncertainty and doubt, and of suspicion 
 and strife. 
 
 In closing, Moderator, let me thank you and the 
 General Assembly for your indulgent attention to this 
 long and sometimes technical argument. The laws of 
 our Book may be imperfect, for they are human laws ; 
 our interpretation of the law may be defective, because 
 it is a human interpretation ; but these laws and their 
 interpreters may be the means of advancing the King- 
 dom of God. And, having been faithful to the rights 
 and laws of His Church on earth, you shall doubtless 
 see the effects of this fidelity in that heavenly empire, 
 the realm of glory, to which He will one day summon 
 His elect. 
 
Date Due 
 
 - -- ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 . • ^.\^'( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u.-.*. r- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ai ^: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ''<C{/1 
 
 /r 
 
 
 
 ■ r 
 
 r 
 
 -> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f)