Grand River times. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1851-18??, 1853-11-16
PROFESSIONAL COUNSEL IN ECCLESI-
ASTICAL COUNCILS. 9 3

fhOr EoOlONAs IOUNSEll TN ECCLLCl-
ASTICAL COUNCILS. Sd
A western correspondent wishes us to answer
some questions, touching this subject, with RET.
erence to difficulties that have actually occurred
In his vicinity. The questions respect the pro-
prlety OF employing as counsel, gentlemen OF
the legal profession, who are not members OF
churches in cases that come before ecclesiastic-
al councils.
One question is, what is Congregational usage
in the case Z The nature of the case Is such
that there can be no written evidence on TINS
point. We have no records which tell what
counsel has acted in the cases that have occur
red. But as far as our observation has extend
ed and our memory serves, we think the usage
has been nearly or quite uniform against the en-
ployment of lawyer who is not professor OF
religion that is, when either party or the coun-
Gil object to it. We have known two instances
in which it was done without objection, and 9TH
er cases in which the matter came under discuss
ion. Whenever the subject has come under no.
tice, it has generally been disposed of by recog-
nizing the principle, that lawyer, to be admit
ted TO plead in such case, should be member
of q church. Our opinion is, that most minis
tiers of experience in Massachusetts act on this
principle, when called upon such councils.
Another question is, what is right in the case,
Independently of usage? Our view is, that there
are important reasons in favor OF a rule which
should require such advocates OF parties on tri-
al before ecclesiastical councils TO be professors
of religion. We would not say that such a rule
should admit of no exceptions. There are in
the legal profession high minded and honorable
men not professors of religion, whose charac-
ers and whose interest in ecclesiastical councils,
would be sufficient guaranty against the evils
which the rule contemplates. BY the consent
of parties and of the councils, such men may be
proftably employed. Nor would such rule,
when put in proper form, so as to exclude them
except when admitted by consent, be any bar to
their being employed. But as a general rule,
the pr0priety of the limitation is plain.
In support of this view it may be said, that as
general fact, lawyers, without being profess
ing christians. will not be fully capable of ap-
preciating and properly treating many ofthe SUBJ
jects which come up on such trials and, further,
that their professional habits will naturally in
cline them to mode of treatment, which tends
vastly to aggravate the evils of ecclesiastical lit
igaton, which are bad enough at the BEST A
lawyer managing such a case, with no special
sense of responsibility as a christian, forgetful, it
may be, of decorum, and giving free play to his
talents for creating popular amusement out of
his case; might make the spectators forget that
they were not in a police court. Though such
improperly might not frequently occur, yet
there is no security against the evil but the OBJ
servance of the rule which our usage has estab-
lished. H
The Presbyterian book of Discipline excludes
all professional counsel in such case, and CON-
pels the parties who wish for counsel to seek
that of some minister or elder belonging to the
judicatory which tries the case. This appears
to restrict the matter more than is reasonable.
In most cases, there is propriety in preferring
ministers to lawyers. But in some cases, law
yers would have the advantage in eliciting the
truth, because of their better acquaintance with
the rules of evidence, and their acquired skill in
the examination of witnesses. Puritan Rec
- a N