Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1857-11-04

reach. They can infict no physical punishment
in case of perjury, hence the oath is without the
yindicatory sanction, with which the law guards
it, and perjury, and the injustice consequent
upon it, viii be the result They are notso well
adanteS to the discovering Of facts, IN that the
trial by Jury has ever been lauded, as the best
mode of finding out the truth of an accusation
or the business of demand. Besides, it has
been found necessary, that certain rules las of
Evidence &c) should be observed, in the trial
of a fact. with which ecclesiastical bodies, by
reason of their spiritual office, cannot be so
well acquainted, as the civil, which deal, pro-
fessedIy, in such matters. Possessed OF such
slender means, it seems little remarkable, that
the church should assume so much, for, indeed,
it is no less an assumption than of the power
to accomplish the secular task, which all en-
lightened legislatures and the enlightened senti
ment of mankind declares the secular powers,
themselves, incompetent to. But, grant her
competent, and all the ils-litigaton, injustice
and false swearing,-whch had existed in Eng
land, prior to the passage of the Statute of
Limitations, and which the wise legislators of
that kingdom and our own states afterwards so
carefully provided against, must certainly be
If it be true that "the powers that be are Or
dained of God" then the church on earth has
no right to nulify OF render Intellectual any law
of the State. On the other hand, it is her duty
to preach respect and adherence to the civil
laws If it be true also, that we are bound, in
conscience, to submit to the civil power-and the
same inspired writer above quoted, warns us to
submit 'ttor conscience sake, ''-itm may well be q
question, whether he that sues, and not he
that pleads the Statute Of Limitations, in a case
in which it may be pleaded, has not violated his
religious duty? The Statute of Virginia Declares
land such is its tenor in all the other States,)
that "no action shall he brought" beyond the
tot Nan OTH.
mand of the law, he brings action. Is his act
in bringing suit forbidden by the law, altogeth-
er eXcnseable IN conscience, whilst the act of
him vindicating the law aud bringing an illegal
deed to light is uncOnscionable and reprehenS-
bic? Even though wrong be done the sutton
(Which, indeed is seldom the case, under so wise
law he can complain to no spiritual body, be.
cause he is bound to submit ''for conscience
sake"
We cannot, therefore, look upon the Synod,
deciding as it did, in any other light than as
having committed dangerous error, and one
that will prove injurious to its own respect, If
not to the interests Of religion. Instead of la
boring to bring the church in opposition to the
civil laws, it should have striven to withdraw
her still farther from any intermeddling there
with. The Sympathies of the people are enIiS-
ted in the cause of perfectly maintaining their
legal rights, conscious that their own happiness
depends on this. True to nature, they will act
| out the dictates of this sympathy, even TO the
ldiSparagement of religion; whilst, on the other
hand, feeling secure of their rights religion is
spontaneously cherished in their hearts. In
conclusion, we would say, upon this point, to
the church and all its judicatories, as Lord Ba-
con says in his Advice to Sir George Villiers,
"the people of this [countryl love the laws there
of, and nothing will oblige them, more than a
confidence of free enjoying of them"
SAEcULUs.