T. I O.I <^' 00 PRINCETON, N. J. wn/e^ /?/ O^rvs. 0\\>.\'r\or. /-(' of Dif'cipliiic a Diifij. 23 scientiously. The Presbyterian Church is grounded "upon the foundation of the apos- tles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself be- ing the chief Corner-stone." Believing this, the Church has its system of doctrine and laws, which it holds not as a philosophy of men, but as a compact statement of the truth contained in the Word of God. It believes that the world can best be reached and brought under the power of the Gospel by the preaching of the whole counsel of God. To this end it ordains men to the ministry, examining them as to their piety and doctrine, as well as scholarship. It can do its work effectively only by maintaining a high standard of doctrine and conduct. It must not only guard the entrance to the min- istry, but must be watchful of those who are already in it, and where immorality or unsoundness appears it must not shrink even from judicial process, if such process \z the only relief. There are some who, while recognizing the necessity of judicial trials in cases of immorality, oppose all trials for unsounc|- 24 Ecclesiastical Discipline. ness in doctrine on the ground that such trials beget public discord, create scandal and work grave injury, and that the Church can sufficiently protect itself by a con- sistent testimony against errors as they arise. The acknowledged insufficiency of this method in cases of immorality will illustrate its insufficiency in cases of un- soundness. If a minister is known to be guilty of dishonesty or licentiousness, no amount of testimony against these sins will protect the Church so long as he is re- tained on its roll as a minister in good standing. The enemies of the Church will say: This doctrine of purity and honesty is what j''0u affirm, but this man's life is your real testimony. The only effective testimony in cases of gross and well proven immorality is in dealing with the offender. Sc in cases of unsoundness. If a minister is known to deny the deity of Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures, or any other doctrine fundamental to our system., the testimony of the Church concerning such doctrines is discounted and, in large degree, nullified, if the man remains in E.xercise of Discipline a Duty. 25 good standing and, acting under the Church's authority, is allowed to continue to teach them. Moreover, what one may teach, others may teach. False doctrine may spread and gain a hold, influencing many who are inclined to novelty, or who lack in knowledge or judgment. As a result, controversies arise and sharp discussions engage the thought of the Church, turning it from its work of evangelizing the un- converted. It is sometimes claimed that trials for heresy do this, but the disturb- ances and evil results would be greater and more prolonged under a system which lim- ited the Church to the expression of its opinion, allowing men to antagonize it on ersential doctrines from its own pulpits. If the Church is to accomplish the work to which it is pledged, it must have, and, as necessity arises, exercise the power to free itself from responsibility for those who antagonize its fundamental doctrines. It is urged by some as a reason why there should be no heresy trials that the Church maintains the "right of private 20 Ecclesiastical Discipline. judgment," as it certainly does. Just here, however, is an important distinction. A minister may have the right of private judgment without having the right to teach in the name of the Church. There is a right of united denominational judgment, which belongs to the Church, and which is expressed in its standards. When the private judgment of an individual differs from this so radically that his teachings produce contention and strife, and hinder the Church from the accomplishment of its work, he should withdraw, teaching upon his own responsibility or seeking a denomination in harmony with his doc- trines. No violence would thus be done to his right of private judgment, and the Church would be free to go on with its work. If he does not withdraw, the Church should have, as it has in the Book of Dis- cipline, a safe, just and effective way of freeing itself from all responsibility for his errors. Discipline either for immorality or un- sound teaching should only be exercised in Exercise of Discipline a Duty. 27 cases of necessity; but in such cases its exercise is as important and as much a duty as the exercise of any other power committed to the Church. SAFEGUARDS OF DISCIPLINE. The same wise caution whicli led the framers of the Book of Discipline to guard against unnecessary prosecutions, led them also to provide that where judicial process is necessary the issues must be plainly drawn, the well defined rights of con- tendants respected, and sufficient time ta- ken to determine the questions involved. In every judicial case there must be two parties, the accused and the accuser. The latter may be an individual who personally assumes the responsibility of prosecution, or the Church, which, through one of its judicatories, initiates process by the ap- pointment of a committee to act in its name. In either case the rights of the ac- cuser, or prosecutor, are "to conduct the prosecution in all its stages, and in what- ever judicatory, until the final issue be reached." The position of prosecutor is one of grave responsibility, and should not be assumed or accepted except under the conviction that it is the call of God. Once accepted, it requires wisdom, patience and (28) Safeguards of Discipline. 29 charity, as well as prayerful dependence upon the wisdom which cometh from above. The prosecutor must expect and be un- moved by harsh criticism; he may be called a persecutor and inquisitor. He must restrain the natural impulse to meet bitter- ness with bitterness, as well as the natural desire for success. His object must be not victory, but right. Where he is sure that immorality or unsound doctrine threatens the purity of the Church, and that victory and right are identical, he must push the case with vigor and by every justifiable means. The question, whether being de- feated in one judicatory, he will appeal to another, and eventually to the highest, is one of duty, to be settled not according to popular clamor, but conscientiously and in the fear of God. The rights of the accused party are very fully set forth in the Book of Discipline. He is entitled to trial, not by a court com- posed of strangers, but by h'.3 own breth- ren. (Section 18.) If a minister, his own Presbytery, and if an elder or private mem- ber, his own Session is the court of original 30 Ecclesiastical Discipline. jurisdicUon. Here, however, as in all parts of our system, the interests of the indi- vidual and of the Church are equally guard- ed. Where the Session or Presbytery fails to do its duty, the higher judicatories may direct it, and in case of refusal or neg- lect to obey, may themselves institute pro- cess. The Book is built upon the theory that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, and that every opportunity must be given him to prove his innocence. To this end the charges must be definite, and the specification must, as far as possible, give time, place, circumstances and names of witnesses cited to sustain them. More- over, he is entitled to due notice and time for the preparation of his defense. The deliberate methods of Presbyterian discipline are an argument in its favor. Men can not be condemned hastily or without defense. In this it differs from the process common in some other denominations, where members or ministers may be tried and disfellowshiped without notice, simply by a majority in a meeting of the congre- Safeguards of Discipline. 31 gation, where perhaps prejudice or passion runs high. The Book provides (Section 19) that when a judicatory enters upon the consid- eration of an alleged offense, the charges and specifications shall be read, and noth- ing more shall be done at that meeting, unless by consent of parties, than to fur- nish the accused with a copy of the charges, specifications and names of witnesses, and to cite all concerned to appear at a meet- ing, to be held not less than ten days after the time of the citations. The object of this is to secure to every person accused of wrong-doing the opportunity to prepare his defense and to be fully heard. No advan- tage can be taken of him. If he is not fa- miliar with Church law, or for any reason is unable to conduct his defense, he may, under Section 26, select any member of the judicatory to act as his counsel. If he lefuses or fails to answer a citation, he must be cited again, having additional time before the judicatory can take any action in his case. The Book of Discipline is sometimes crit- 82 Ecclesiastical Discipline. icised as too complicated and technical, but the criticism is unwarranted. All its pro- visions are for the furtherance of justice and for the protection of the innocent. Moreover, it is remarkably simple to those who take the trouble to study it. Where complications arise and provisions seem technical, it is frequently because through ignorance or carelessness the plain lan- guage of the Book has been disregarded. "ACTUAL PROCESS." The first step, after a person has been accused and cited^ and has answered the citation, in an ecclesiastical case, is to de- termine legal questions, viz.: Whether the things charged are really an offense, and whether the specifications sustain the charges and are otherwise in order, as well as the jurisdiction and proper organization of the judicatory. (Section 22.) After this come questions of fact, viz.: whether the testimony sustains the various specifica- tions. Tn the first part of this program the ac- cused "may file objections to the regularity of the organization, or to the jurisdiction of the judicatory, or to the sufficiency of the charges and specifications, in form or in legal effect, or any other substantial ob- jection affecting the order or regularity of the proceedings." If the judicatory lacks a quorum or has not been constituted for judicial business, or is chargeable with any irregularity, or has no right to put the ac- cused on trial, as in the case of a session (33) 34 Ecclesiastical Discipline. trying a minister, or of a Presbytery trying a member of another Presbytery, or if the thing charged is trivial and not wrong, the trial may at once be arrested. There have been cases in which the charges, even if sustained, would not justify a censure or even an admonition, and which were properly dismissed as "insuffi- cient in legal effect." There have been others in which the specifications did not sustain the charges, and which also were properly dismissed. The framers of the Book of Discipline were eminently wise in thus providing that uncalled for trials may be stopped before any testimony is presented, and before the accused is even called to plead "guilty or not guilty." Why waste time in attempting to prove that the accused has said or done a thing which is not an offense or a matter for which he can be reproved? At the same time, the interests of the Church are guarded by provisions that where a case is wrongfully dismissed it may be taken by appeal or complaint to a higher court, 'Actual Process." 35 or may come up of itself when the higher court passes upon the record. Appeal to the General Assembly has been taken in the McGiffert case on the ground that it was dismissed by Presbytery before the testimony was heard, and not on any ground specified by the Boole of Discipline as a proper ground of dismissal, or because the Presbytery regarded Dr. McGiffert's doctrines as sound, but because the Pres- bytery thought that a trial would work in- jury to the Church. The second part in the program of judi- cial process is the effort to determine whether the testimony sustains the specifi- cations and charges. In most cases this is the important part of the proceedings. Questions of law are usually simple and easily determined, popular opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. The real diffi- culty is in determining the competency and credibility of witnesses, and the bearing of their testimony, and the force of utter- ances cited as heretical. An illustration of this may be noted in the fact that since the adoption of the chapter on judicial com- 36 Ecclesiastical Discipline. missions, which makes it necessary to formulate points of law and to present them, apart from all evidence, to the ap- pointing judicatory, there has not been a single point of law touching which the Assembly has differed from its commissions or touching which there has been any sharp discussion. Parties in interest have some- times argued that points presented by com- missions were not the points really in- volved in their cases; but this is a matter of evidence. Chapter VIII. of the Book of Discipline prescribes rules of evidence which are to be strictly observed. Most of these are rules recognized in all courts, as the ex- pression of common-sense principles. Nev- ertheless they are frequently ignored. "De- clining to receive important testimony" is sometimes a ground of appeal. Cases have reached the Assembly and been reversed because men were condemned on the tes- timony of a single witness. Others have been reversed because witnesses were not put under oath, as the Book directs, and others for failure to observe other equally ''Act It'll Process. plain rules. We can not here go over all these rules, nor is it necessary. Those who are called to act in church courts are, or should be, familiar with the Standards of the Church, and should, when performing judicial functions, adhere closely to the rules of procedure, and especially to those in the chapter on evidence [A r.eat copy of the Form of Government, Book of Dis- cipline and Directory for Worship is pub- lished by the Presbyterian Board of Pub- lication at lifty cents. A larger volume, containing these and also the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, may be had for sixty-five cents. The Depository of the Board, 420 Elm Street, Cincinnati, or any other depository, or the Board itself at Philadelphia, will send these books, post- paid, at these prices.] After the testimony in a case is all in, and after the parties have been heard, for such time as the judicatory may deem rea- sonable, the judicatory shall go into pri- vate session and shall deliberate, and after- wards vote "on each specification and on each charge separately, and judgment shall 38 Ecclesiastical Discipline. be entered accordingly" (Section 23). A full record shall be kept of all proceed- ings Section 24.) This is especially im- portant, in view of the provisions for ap- peal, complaint and review and control, which will furnish the subject of another chapter. THE HIGHER COURTS. That which distinguishes Presbyterian discipline from other systems is its suc- cession of courts. The Church is one. A number of congregations make up a Pres- bytery; a number of Presbyteries, a Synod; and all the Synods a General Assembly. The session chosen by the congregation admin- isters its affairs, not independently, but as part of Presbytery, Synod and Assembly. The Form of Government defines the duties, rights and relations of these various bodies. The Book of Discipline gives specific direc- tions as to the conduct of judicial business. The session is the court of primary juris- diction in cases involving members and elders, but its decisions are not necessarily final; being subject to review by the higher bodies. So the decisions of the Presbytery, which has primary jurisdiction over min- isters, are subject to review by Synod and the Assembly. There are three ways in which the de- cisions of a lower judicatory may come be- fore a higher, viz.: by Review and Control, (39) 40 Ecclesidstical Discipline. by Complaint, and by Appeal. There is also a provision for Reference (Sections 77-82), by which cases "not yet decided" may be transferred to the next higher judicatory. Under "Review and Control" (Sections 71-76) any action of a judicatory may be passed upon by the next superior judica- tory. This may be at the annual examina- tion of Records, or at any time when the superior judicatory, being advised of irreg- ular or unconstitutional action, calls for the records and enters upon investigation. In case irregularities are discovered excep- tion may be taken and censure imposed. The importance of Review and Control in our system is not always fully appre- ciated. Some who examine records see only such tochnical irregularities as the failure to open or close with prayer or to record the names of absentees. These ought they to note, and not leave more important things unnoticed. Sections 75 and 76 make it a duty to note unconstitutional proceed- ings, and particularly any "neglect whereby heretical opinions or corrupt practices may be allowed to gain ground, or gross offen- The HiyJicr Courts. 41 ders suffered to escape." No judicial deci- sion may be reversed under Review and Control, but the process contemplated in these two sections may involve the initia- tion of a judicial case, in which the lower judicatory is respondent, or in which the examining judicatory takes jurisdiction in cases which the lower judicatory has neg- lected. These sections are in harmony with the doctrine of Section 18, that "higher ju- dicatories may institute process in cases in v/hich the lower have been directed to do so, and have refused or neglected" to do so. Appeal and Complaint are distinct pro- cesses, though often confused. An appeal can be taken only by one of the original parties to a case, viz.: by the accused or accuser. A complaint may be taken by any one subject and submitting to the jurisdic- tion of the judicatory complained of. An appeal can ho. taken only from "the final judgment" in a judicial case; a complaint may be taken respecting any decision or delinquency of an inferior judicatory. An appeal takes a judicial case already tried in an inferior judicatory before a higher 42 Ecclesiastical Discipliiir. judicatory; a complaint may initiate a new case in which the complainant is one party and the judicatory complained of the other. An appeal may be taken to any superior judicatory, but a complaint only to the next higher judicatory. An appeal always con- templates the reversal of the decision of a judicial case; a complaint may contemplate this or only the correction of some trifling irregularity in the trial of a case, or even some non-judicial decision. In the latter case, if signed by one-third of the mem- bers recorded as present, it stays the exe- cution of the decision complained of. Appeal and Complaint are alike in that both require notice, with reasons, to be given to the clerk or moderator of the judi- catory within ten days, and both must be filed with the clerk of the superior judica- tory before the close of the second day of its session, together with the papers in the case. Appeals and complaints growing out of judicial proceedings are also alike in that they involve the same proceedings in the appellate judicatory. (Sections 87 and 99.) The Higher Courts. 43 In complaints in cases non-judicial the pro- ceedings are those provided for in cases of "original process" (Section 87), The ob- ject of an appeal is always the reversal of a "final judgment" in a judicial case. The reversal of a condemnation is acquittal. The reversal of an acquittal or of a dis- missal of a case (which in effect is an ac- quittal) is condemnation. The usual grounds of appeal are, irregular- ity in proceedings; refusal to receive proper testimony; receiving improper testimony or hastening to a decision before important testimony is heard; manifestation of preju- dice, and mistake and injustice in the de- cision. These grounds, variously stated, underlie almost every appeal. They were the grounds in the Briggs and Smith cases, and are the grounds in the McGiffert case. The regularity with which they appear in appeal cases suggests the necessity of watch- fulness in these directions on the part of judicatories and of all interested in judicial ceases. JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS. An overture, proposing a new chapter to take the place of Chapter XIII. of the Book of Discipline, on "Judicial Commissions," was sent down by the last Assembly and is now before the Presbyteries. The present chapter on judicial commis- sions is defective in some respects, but the defects are not serious and can be cor- rected by amendments which will not dis- turb its general character. The difficulties experienced by commis- sions in dealing with cases which have reached the Assembly have been: 1. The lack of full records, resulting from the absence of any direction in regard to the keeping and care of records in Chapter XIII. 2. The various interpretations of Section 119, particularly of the last clause. 3. Uncertainty as to whether the ten days allowed for appeal and complaint begin with the decision of the commission or with its report to the appointing judi- catory. (44) Judicial Commissions. 45 4. The double provision in regard to a quorum. The proposed overture attempts too much, though some of its provisions are wise; and the same may be said of an overture having the same purpose prepared by Rev. Dr. Bon- ner, of Florida, N. Y. The following para- graphs taken from these overtures might be inserted in the present chapter, taking the place of the last clause in Section 119: Such commissions shall try all cases re- ferred to them by the rules and processes which govern the appointing judicatories in iike cases, A commission shall keep a full and cor rect minute of its proceedings, which, to- gether with its findings, shall be entered upon the records of the appointing judica- tory. A judicatory on reception of the report of a commission appointed by it shall at once place the same upon its minutes, and pro- ceed to execute the findings of its Com- mission, subject to the provisions of the Book of Discipline respecting dissents and protests, complaints and appeals, review and control. The insertion of these or similar para- graphs in the present chapter and the omis- 46 Ecclesiastical Discipltne. sion of the provision that the quorum of a commission shall "in other respects" be like that of the appointing judicatory, would relieve the real difficulties to which refer- ence has been made in the discussion of the matter. The last clause of Section 119 in the pres- ent chapter is certainly confusing. The en- tire section is as follows: All judicial cases may be submitted to such commissions, and their decisions shall be subject to reversal only by the superior judicatories; except in matters of law, which shall be referred to the appointing judicatory for adjudication; and also all matters of constitution and doctrine may be reviewed in the appointing body and by the superior judicatory or judicatories. The intent of the last clause of this sec- tion was to put the decisions of commis- sions on the same plane with the decisions of the judicatories themselves, which are subject not only to appeal or complaint, but to review and control. The language, how- ever, was not well chosen. Persons called to sit on commissions are often confused as to the differences between a question of Judicial Commissions. 47 law, which must be referred to the appoint- ing judicatory, and a question of constitu- tion or doctrine, which may be reviewed either by it or by the superior judicatories. In reality no difference was intended. Ques- tions of constitution and doctrine are ques- tions of law. The language comes down from the old law of commissions, which made no provision for them in Presbyteries, but only in Synods and Assembly. Some acute ecclesiastical lawyers have held that its effect was to make the decisions of com- m.issions of Presbyteries final, except in matters of constitution and doctrines, as are the decisions of Synods (Form of Gov- ernment, XL, 4), and their view finds some support in the history of the language, and in the fact that it was perpetuated after the right to appoint commissions of Presby- teries was given. It would certainly be wise to eliminate this language from the section and to substitute something like the provisions given above. A good deal has been written as to the difficulty of referring points of law to the 48 Ecclesiastical Discipline. appointing judicatory, but this diflaculty has not proved serious in any actual case. It is assumed by those who urge this diffi- culty that a commission must first formu- late its points of law and then wait the action of the appointing judicatory before proceeding with the trial, but this is not the process, and it was not so intended. The commission settles questions of evi- dence and formulates the points of law for presentation to the judicatory. It does not present these in advance, or from time to time, and suspend its sittings until the judicatory passes upon each point, but groups them all together, with its decision after this is reached. In nine cases out of ten there is no perplexity as to the law. Sometimes there is dispute as to the appli- cation of particular points of law, but this is always a matter of evidence, which the commission itself determines. Of late years the Assembly has steadfastly refused 'to allow any discussion of the applicability of points of law to be discussed, and has sim- ply decided the naked points as presented Jiidicidl Coiiiiitissions. 49 by commissions. It is of course possible ihat a commission coming to its judicatory with its decision of a case and with its points of law formulated for presentation before the decision is presented might have its judgment on these points reversed, and so be obliged to modify its decision; but ihis is not probable. Indeed, we do not think it has occurred in a single case in the Assembly since Chapter XIII. was adopted. If it should occur in a Presbytery, it would only show the importance of the provision for the reference of such points to the ap- pointing judicatory. To provide for such- reference only in the Assembly, as has been urged by some, and not in Synods and Presbyteries, would be to encourage appeals and complaints. It is a fact that, while most cases turn on questions of evidence, appeals are usually taken on points of law or technicalities which are magnified into points of law. Many a man is satisfied when his Presbytery settles the law against him, who would not be satisfied by the de- 50 Ecclesiastical Discipline. cision of a commission of Presbytery or even of Synod. Much has been said as to what should ccnstitute a quorum of a commission. A comparison of the Form of Government with the present Chapter XIII. of the Dis- cipline will show that a quorum of a com- mission must now be three-fourths of the members, making it as large or larger in numbers than the quorum of the appointing judicatory, and "in other respects" the same. Both the Assembly's overture and the alternate proposed by Dr. Bonner re- tain the three-fourths' rule, and have a pro- vision that the quorum shall not be less than that of the appointing judicatory. The present language is unfortunate; but the proposed change is equally so. The second provision either means nothing or it reaffirms a condition which is impossible, and which commissions have ignored, and which, in the event of any revision, should be removed. If the intention of this second provision is that the quorum shall be equal in num- bers to a quorum of the judicatory, it is Judicial Commissions. unnecessary and confusing. Three-fourths of the members will always be as many as a quorum of the judicatory. If the inten- tion is that the quorum shall be similarly composed, it makes a quorum impossible in any commission made up of ministers and elders in the usual proportion. Sup- pose, for illustration, that any Synod ap- points a comm.ission of twelve, the number given in Chapter XIII. and also in the over- ture, of whom six, as in the established rule, are ministers and six elders. A quorum is nine, which is more than the number of ministers who, "with as many elders as may be present," are required for a quorum of the Synod; but aji there are only six ministers on the commission, there can be no quorum. A similar difficulty is possible, though not inevitable, in commis- sions of the Assembly and Presbyteries. The only escape from the dilemma would be in the appointment of larger commis- sions, which would be impossible in some Presbyteries, or in the appointment of commissions composed entirely of minis- ters, which would be unwise. 52 Ecclesiastical Discipline. The provision in regard to a quorum is a fatal defect in the proposed overture. If adopted, it would be a dead letter, as the present provision is, or would render the en- tire chapter inoperative. It would be better to strike from the present chapter the clause making the quorum identical with that of the appointing judicatory, leav- ing it simply three-fourths of the whole number. It is probable, and certainly to be hoped, that the overture will not be adopted, and that the Assembly will send down another overture proposing modifica- tions, which, while not affecting the general character of the chapter, v/ill relieve it of the difficulties specified. In preparing such an overture the As- sembly or its committee will have no little assistance. Besides the overtures referred to, several more or less complete chapters have appeared. The Presbytery of New York proposes one which is in some re- spects superior to either of those now be- fore the Church. It retains, however, the urlfortunate double provision for a quorum. It also provides that a commission of Pres- Judicial Commissions. 53 bytery may sit between meetings of the ju- dicatory. Also that commissions of Synod or Assembly shall refer to the appointing body such points of law or doctrine as have been made the subject of exception by either of the parties. THE EXCELLENCE OF THE PRESBY- TERIAN SYSTEM. The Book of Discipline is often unjustly blamed for the mistakes of those who ad- minister it, and even for those of its critics themselves. It is said that the condemna- tion of unsound doctrine advertises and gives it currency, and that the bitterness generated during trials is a grave injury to the Church. Such advertisement and bitterness, however, are not necessary ac- companiments or results of judicial process. Indeed, one purpose of the Book is to avoid these things, or at least to limit them as far as possible. It rarely happens that a trial, either for unsoundness or immorality, attracts gen- eral attention unless the offense alleged has itself already aroused public interest. Re- cent trials illustrate this. The Briggs case was famous before it assumed judicial form. Dr. McGiffert's book was discussed and condemned throughout the Church be- fore process was initiated. Ecclesiastical action did not give publicity, but was a (54) Excellence of the System. 55 result of it. In civil courts cases of great importance arouse antagonism, and often bring criticism upon the judges and upon the law, but this is no argument against the law or its enforcement. It may be an ar- gument against an open court room and the publication of proceedings, but not against the trial of offenders. The experience of those who would hold the Church true to its Standards is not unlike that of those who seek the enforce- ment of temperance legislation. Whether the law be prohibitive or only regulative or restrictive, there are always some to raise the cry of personal liberty and to declaim against the law itself. Good laws are the object of perpetual attack. Sometimes the effort is to revise them out of existence, and sometimes to destroy them by non-enforce- ment. The strategy of those opposed to discipline includes these methods. The cru- sade against heresy trials would either re- vise or ignore the law. In either case it would open the Church to all manner of teaching, taking from it the power by which 56 Ecclesiastical Discipline. it can protect itself even against the gross- est infidelity. There is no more reason for publicity or for bitterness in the removal of offenses under our Discipline than under any other system in use among the denominations. So long as it must needs be that offenses come, their correction will involve a meas- ure of excitement and advertisement, with possible bitterness. In proportion as cases are important and complicated, these re- sults will be more apparent. The excitement and advertisement con- Eected with the McGiffert case are excep- tional and not a result of our system. As already noted, they antedate any judicial action in his case. They were not entirely spontaneous or natural, but were, as we suppose, designed to prevent such action. The movement f©r a revision of the Book of Discipline, which began in 1898 and has not yet been entirely abandoned, was pri- marily a movement for the defense of Dr. McGiffert The cry of "no more heresy trials" was a demand for the toleration of his doctrines. The cry was first raised fjxceijencc of tJie System. by his champions, but was taken up by some others whose fears led them to mag- nify the danger of adhering to the methods prescribed by our Standards. Now that Dr. McGiffert has withdrawn from the Church and that the Presbytery has stricken his name from the roll, little remains of his case except the principle in- volved in the action of Presbytery in re- fusing to try it after Dr. McGiffert had been cited and had responded to the citation. Dr. Birch intimated to the Presbytery that after the legal principles involved in the case are settled by the Assembly he will pursue the matter no farther. Pres- bytery's action was a practical asser- tion of the doctrine of "no more heresy trials," even in cases which, like that of Dr. McGiffert, touch the vitals of our faith. The issue is plain. Dr. McGiffert emphasizes iL in his letter. The appeal of Dr. Birch claims that Presbytery should have pro- ceeded with the trial according to the Book, and that it had no right to dismiss the case for the reasons given. The Presbytery 58 Ecclesiastical Discipline. claims that, though the teachings of Dr. McGiffert are "erroneously and seriously out of harmony with the facts of Scrip- ture," a trial would work injury. Questions may be raised as to the right of Presbytery tc dismiss Dr. McGiffert after his case was in the hands of the Assembly, and it is possible that the action may be declared irregular, but its effect will be to simplify matters by eliminating the personal ele- ment. Had Dr. McGiffert not withdrawn, the Assembly, after sustaining the appeal of Dr. Birch, would be obliged to take up and try the case upon the original charges, or to direct the Presbytery to do so. As it is, the Assembly can sustain the appeal, and then say that "inasmuch as Dr. McGif- fert has withdrawn and his name been stricken from the roll, no further action is necessary." This will vindicate the law and give peace. It will assert the prin- ciple that where ministers diligently propa- gate dangerous error and will not heed admonition or withdraw, judicial process is a duty, and it will illustrate that char- Excellence of the System. 59 ity and disposition to peace which our doc- trine and Discipline inculcate. It has not been shown that any radical change in our system would be an improve- ment, or that any other system would pre- vent or reduce the evils enumerated. The question whether the processes of the Book of Discipline can in any way be shortened and simplified is worthy of consideration. This question will be brought before the Assembly by an overture from the Pres- bytery of New Brunswick. The suggestion which has been urged by newspaper writers that offenders be referred to judicious committees or commissions hav- ing povrer to investigate privately and take final action, offers nothing desirable which can not be had under the Book of Disci- pline, while it does take away safeguards which are of great value. It is now entirely possible and easy, under Chapter XIII., to refer any case to a commission, as judicious ar? can be made up in the judicatory. It is also possible for such a commission or for any judicatory to sit with closed doors, excluding outsiders, and maintaining se- 60 Ecclesiastical Discipline. crecy as thoroughly as could be done by any committee. Progress in methods of ad- ministering law, both civil and ecclesias- tical, has heretofore been found to lie in the direction of open courts, with full, fair trials. Star chamber proceedings and secret trials under the Inquisition were the in- struments of oppression. Our judicatories have, as they should have, the right to sit in private. Possibly this right should be exercised more frequently than it is, but any modification of the Book making all judicial proceedings secret would be a blun- der. So would the removal of the safe- guards which are part of our present sys- tem. The evils resulting from public trials as now conducted are trifling compared with those which would result from trials behind closed doors and without these safeguards. The Book of Discipline, good as it is, may possibly be improved by some amendments, as, for instance, the changes in its chap- ter on Judicial Commissions, which we have discussed, or by other changes calculated to remove friction and more promptly secure Excellence of the System. 61 the ends for which it is intended; but any general revision, designed to take from the Church its power to protect itself, or to take from any minister or member his right to a full and fair trial, with appeal if he wishes, to the highest court, would be a step backward and not forward — a move- ment towards the darkness and oppression of the Middle Ages and away from the high ground of truth, morality and justice, to which our standard has been advanced. The Church is not ready for such a move- ment. The assertion, credited to a "prom- inent New York clergyman," and published with approving comments in a number of daily papers, that "if the question could be put to vote at once, the Church would abol- ish the Book of Discipline," is simply an opinion, or the expression of desire, with no basis of fact. However, what the Church would do if called to vote "at once," is less important than what it would do after consideration. It is one of the excellencies of our Form of Government that it provides against C)2 Ecclesiastical Discipline. basty revision of its standards. The cry of "no more heresy trials" disturbed some good people, and perhaps some are still dis- turbed, but the provision whereby changes in the Book must be overtured to Presby- teries and answered a year later, insures full discussion and wise action. It is easy to start a revision movement. A few newspaper articles, interviews with radical men in different cities, vigorous as- sertions that the whole Church favors it, are sufficient. It is not so easy to persuade the Assembly and a majority or two-thirds of the Presbyteries. Ministers and elders as a rule are well informed, thoughtful, stable men. They know what they believe. They are not easily swept off their feet, and when they are, soon get back to solid ground. They understand and believe the system of doctrine taught in the Confes- sion of Faith. They know the meaning and necessity of the ordination vow. They know that if the Church is to accomplish its divine mission, it must maintain a sound, conservative ministry, and that to Excellence of the System. (i3 this end it must have an effective method of dealing with those who are immoral or unsound. Such a system they have in the Book of Discipline. To abandon this be- cause its operation sometimes develops friction, would be as foolish as for sheep to give up their watchdogs because barking disturbs the wolves, or for a city to give up its courts and police because lawbreak- ers are obstreperous. Our system has stood the test of many ecclesiastical trials. It has been violently assailed. Men who have been judged by it do not like it. "No rogue e'er felt the halter draw with good opinion of the law," and on the same principle men who are not rogues, but who are theologically unsound and un- fit for our ministry, would abolish heresy trials. "Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." The crusade against heresy trials began with men out of sympathy with Presbyterianism. It has gained recruits among those who, without much thought, overestimate the difficulties and underestimate the importance of dis- 64 Ecclesiastical Discipline. cipline. As the question is discussed in Church courts, difficulties will disappear and the duty of the Church to maintain sound doctrine and the excellence of its fiystem will be manifest. DATE DUE GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A. ^^'" Pnnceton Theological Seminary-Speer Library ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M