New-York daily tribune., 1856-05-23

rsouire il to review and correct its proceedings
Or even if the record show nothing wrong, yet il
common fame charge that through the neglect OF
any Synod " beretical opinions or corrupt prsc-
tees" are "allowed to gain ground, aud that
" offenders Of very gross character are suffered
:" to escape" then the Assembly has power to cite
before it the Synod thus charged, to show what it
has done or failed to do, after which the whole
matter is again 70 be referred to the delinquent
Synod. with direction to take it up and dispose
I" of il in q constitutional mSnner.'
1t is evident that under this system the efecsual
administration of the discipline Of the Church
must depend, in great extent on the fidelity
Of the inferior jurisdictions, the Sessions, and
the Pretbytery. The Assembly has no power to
cite those bodies directly before it. 1t can only
reach them indirectly through the Synod, IN
case it be made to appear that the synod
has cOnnived with them in neglect OF duty;
and after all, the discipline must finally be
administered, if at all, through the medium
of these same delinquent judicatories, brought
to sense of duty by the snirnadyersions of the As
sembly Here is evidently much room for the
escape of delnquents, and the continuance in the
! Church of unworthy members but the Committee
think it better to submit to this evil than to at
tempt to draw tighter the reigus of ecclesiastical
authority.
| 1t appears from the debate that, at the risk OF
some ambiguity, the report of the msjority, in the
! hope Of securing unanimous consent, had been
subjected to considerable trimming so as TO
avoid the question whether Slavery is sin, per sc
| But the Rev. DR.. BOYD of Virginia could not thus
| be induced to sign IT, In his minority report he
comedies with the majority in their exposition OF
the limits of the authority ofthe General Assembly
with the rather important addition, however that
the whole power Of the Assembly is exhausted
when it has ordereda delinquent Synod to consider
a subject a. to which the Assembly thinks it has
not done its duty The Synod is bound to obey
this order to reconsider; but whether the reconsd-
GRAFTON shall result in any action is, according to
DR.. Boyd, wholly left to the lower court.
DIR. Boyd also concurs in the Detroit resolution
on Slavery, so far as it implies, as he understands II
TO do and he says the majority OF the Committee
sgree with him in that Interpretation of it), that
slavehodng is not sin in itself but only becomes
80 in cases not included within the exceptions
stated But in his opinion those exceptions, IN
cludipg as they do, cases where slayeholdlng
is unavoidable by the laws of the State, the obll-
" cations of guardianship, or the demands oil
- humanity" twill cover at least the vast ma
"ioiity of cases Of slsvehoding in the land
Admitting that slaveholdiDg, when not within the
range Of these exceptions may be an otense In the
sight of God, DIR. Boyd denies, however, that the
Assembly at Detroit had any right to designate 1t
as disciplinable ofense, and that on two grounds.
In the first place, the Assembly has no authority
to say what are di.ciplinable oenses and what are
not. The Book of ofDiscipline declares that moth
'iDg ought to be considered Is an ofense which
"cannot be proved to be such from Scripture or
from the regulation and practice OF the Chsrch
% founded on Scripture" But ~hat is or is nos
sanctioned or condemned by Scripture is to be de-
termiDed not by the variable opinions OF Assem-
bles, Synods, and Presby teres but, so far as the
Presbyterian Church ia concerned, by the Comics
sion of Faith, including the Longer and Shorter
Cstechisms, and as those documents say nothing
of the " sffense" Of slavehoding, there cannot be-
so far 81 the Presbyterian Church is concerned
any such ofense" to be disciplined, no matter
under what circumstances to slaves are held. That
we may not be accused of Misrepresentation, we
insert the following paragraph from the minority
report:
"The undersigned therefore, dssents from the ac-
ton of the Assembly at Detroit on the subject of
slaveholding, and which s indorsed by majority or
the Committee becsuse saveholding Is not alluded 10
in the Confession Of Faith Of the Presbyterian Church.
and for this reason the relation itself between master
and servant cannot be an offense, Uhderer may be the
circumstance in phich erist in the sense IN which
that term is used in the Book OF Discipline
But though the authorities to which DR.. Boyd
refers do not condemn slsyeholding in terms, they
do enumerate oppression as violation OF the
eighth commandment; and he frankly admits that
if slsveholding is oppression, then shareholders
might be disciplined for oppression, and the slave
holding given in proof to establish that charge.
But though he admits that a STAKEHOLDER may be
oppressive to his slaves, and might be disciplined
for specific acts of oppression just as husband or
father might be for specific scts of cruelty toward
bis wife or children he yet holds that church
member can no more be disciplined for the mere
set Of slayehOlding, whatever may be the circum.
stances under which be maintains that relation, than
be can be for the act of being husband or q
father. He would not be understood as placing
the relation OF STAKEHOLDER on an equal footing,
"in every respect" with the relation of husband
or father; but 10 far as the discipline OF the
Presbyterian Church is concerned, he maintains
that all these relations stand on precisely the same
ground.
He also tskas mi. furthar ohiactiOn tO the |