Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1859-09-22

sentence of deposition or excommunica-
tion passed upon him by the Presbytery-
l. The laws Of the Presbyterian Church
provide for the sdismissiou' of member or
minister, from one congregation to another;
but they make no provisions for formal
sdismission' of member or minister, to an
independence a6 into; hence, the rule can
not apply to a case like that Of Mr.. Davis.
I'd. The accommodation of member
is, according to sReuchlin,' the end of the
chapter for jurisdiction and so it is in point
Of fact Amember or minister may be ex-
PEELED from the church, by being found
guilty of heinous offences; but no innocent
member or minister can be so expelled : nor
can one of acknowledged innocence procure
from the judicatories of the church, SEN
tence of excommunication, if desired. Nor
can Presbytery lawfully infict this 'sen-
tence' upon member without the degrada-
tion of said member. This then, aside from
its impracticability, would have been rath-
er rough road to independence.
sReuchlin' says, 'Mr. Davis continued to
preach, calling himselfan Independent Pres
byterian.' answer, yes! Mr. Editor, he
not only so called shimself,' but he was in
point of fact, 'an Independent Presbyterian
He became Independent of the Jurisdiction
of the Presbyterian Church, by his with
drawal according to has 'oiH, and by the
standard of the Presbyterian Church Gas I
have shown above) which recognized his
aoiH as the rule of membershipin any given
church. And the action of some, if not all,
Of. the judicatories of the Presbyterian
Church has since recognized the Indepen-
dence of the churches and ministers under
him, called Independent Presbyterians.'-
See the minutes Of Sessions in Bethel Pres
bytery, and of the Presbytery. itself, and of
the General Assembly, since the 9th Of o.
tober, 1910. - .. g..
'Reuchlin' says, that Mr.. Davis twas still
under censure of charges pending Per-
haps he means that Mr.. D: was under the
bann of the public sentiment of the Presby-
terian Church-that the serroneous doctrines
which he preached had subjected him; and
were about to subject him again to a formal
process Of discipline and, therefore, his
withdrawal is not independence, but that in
this he is fugitive from the discipline of
the church. I Ianswer, that when 'Mr. Davis
began to be charged &c., there was divi-
ded public sentiment held with Mr..
Davis, and some against him. He appeared
to answer tho charge of sholding and teach
ing erroneous doctrines,' before his Presby-
tery-the First Presbytery of South Carroll
ma. They decided that the doctrines were
erroneous, but considered them as snot stri-
king at the vitals of religion, nor likely to
do much harm,' and only adjudged Mr.
Davis, worthy rebuke for rashly preaching
them before consulting with his brethren )
which rebuke, I doubt not, was administered
in the exercise of charity and brotherly love.
From this decision Of Presbytery there never
was an appeal. And when the Synod of the
Carolinas, arbitrarily took up the trial and
referred the case to the General Assembly,
Mr.. Davis protested against the reference,
and appealed to the Assembly where he sue
cessfully supported his appeal which was
sustained. And there is no evidence that
he preached the alleged 'erroneous doctrines
from this session of the Assembly to the day
of his Withdrawal from the Presbyterian
Church. It is clear, therefore, that he was
then a member and Presbyter in good
standing in the church, to the moment of
his declnature, with not the scrape of pen
against him in any judicatory in the Presby-
terian Church. Therefore, his independence
is good and lawful independence, and he
is not fugitive from the discipline of the
church.
Moreover, to hold Mr.. Davis amenable to
the laws and discipline of the Presbyterian
church, after the time of his withdrawal
from said church, is to deny the soundness
of the basis of the Protestant reformation
from the Papacy, together with the organi-
zation of the whole family of Protestant
churches. Martin Luther, the reformer
from Papacy, and the handspring of all Pro-
testant churches, withdrew from the church
of Rome even after Pope Leo, X, had issu-
ed summons to him to appear before him
and answer to his charges, for what he CAL
led heresies, dated June 18th, 1920. Lu-
ther, however, disregarded the summons
refused to appear-and declared his inde-
pendence by publicly burning the Pope's
summons, with his decretals and canons.-
Luther had the Pope's legal summons laid
upon him but Mr.. Davis was free from any
such incumbrance-Luther wss deposed from
the ministry by the Pope, for contumacy;
and SO was Mr.. Davis unlawfully deposed,
by Concord Presbytery for 'contumacy'-
Luther disregarded the Pope's bull of ex-
communication, and continued to proclaim
the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ; and
so did Mr. Davis disregard the Presbytery's
sentence of deposition and continued to
preach, calling himself an Independent
Presbyterian in perfect accordance with
the rule already quoted from the Confession
of Faith, church government, chap. 2.
shall close this defence of Mr.. Davis a.
gaiust the attack ofsReuchlin' with remark
or two. A
Church censures and anathemas are with
authority, only when performed and pronoun-
ced agreeably to the will of God, asrevealed
Il II ,,1ok