The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1865-08-03

and OF tue lie VI Tue cOmmuuiVy W "u'N
they belong. 1t is nothing more, therefore,
than what might be reasonably expected, II
our late General Assembly should be found
70 have been carried beyond the limits of pro-
priety in their deliveranees and acts.
1t is obvious that the debates and some OF
the measures of the Assembly indicate the
spirit of intolerance and impatience of diver
sity of opinion which are so apt to reveal
themselves in times of excitement. 1t was
even proposed to censure the Synod of Ken
lucky, because that body had expressed its
disapprobation of the action Of the previous
Assembly, respecting slavery and the state OF
the country. Yet every member of the Assem-
bly, would, on reflection, readily admit that 1t Is
the right, not only of subordinate ecclesiasti-
cal bodies, but of the humblest member of
the Church, to express in respectful language
their judgment on the acts of our highest
court This is privilege which we all
claim, and which We all freely exercise, and
which no Presbyterian ever will give up. If,
as citizens, we may express our opinions OF
the acts of Congress; if, in fact, those who
desired to censure the Synod of Kentucky,
did doubtless vehemently condemn those acts
under the administration of Mr.. Buchanan
if, before the division, when the New-school
had the majority in the Assembly, the Old
school freely protested against many of their
measures, surely no one can pretend that all
men are now precluded from this liberty OF
| Judgment and freedom of speech. What
would become of the State or the Church,
if minorities could not say word in
opposition to the acts of the majority! How
long did the evangelical party protest, con-
demned publicly and privately, the course of
the Moderates in the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland. 1t is not necessary
to argue such a point as this, and its being
called in question at all, is an evidence how
soon men in power, and under the pressure
of strong feeling, forget the plainest princi-
Piles of constitutional liberty and right.
Another illustration of this same tendency
is found in the Assembly's making its own
/ deliverauces the test of orthodoxy and loyalty.
DR.. John c. Lord said, that if Kentucky
needed definition of loyalty he would give
it. 1t was cordial agreement with the de-
liverances of the Assembly on doctrine,
| LOYALTY, and freedom" This amounts to
saying, orthodoxy is my dOxy. Yet not only
individual members, but the Assembly itself,
insists in authoritative acts, aud requires this
agreement as the condition on which the
/ Southern ministers and Presbyteries are to
/ be received into our Church. We are per-
I suaded that not member of the body, when
he comes calmly to consider the matter, will
hesitate to admit that the Assembly, in so
doing, transcribed It's power. They allow
their own members to protest against their
acts, to enter their protests on the minutes;
they cannot deny the right of inferior judica-
tories to record their dissent, nor hinder pri-
vate ministers and members from condemn
ing their action and arguing against it, and
yet they declare agreement with it to be a
condition of ministerial and church-fellow-
ship.
1t is an axiom in our Presbyteriauism
that the General Assembly can make no law
to bind the conscience. 1t cannot alter by
adding thereto or detracting therefrom the
constitutional terms of ministerial or Christian
fellowship. Those terms are laid down in
express words in our~Form of Government
which we are all bound to obey. Assenttto
tho truth or propriety of the deliverances or
testimonies of the Assembly is not one of the
terms prescribed. If the Assembly may
make agreement in their testimony on slavery
a term of communion, they may make their
| deliverances on temperance, colonization, or
any other subject such term. This was
often attempted during the temperance ex-
element. We have seen minister rise in
one of our Synods, and say that the time had
come when the Church would not tolerate any
man in the ministry who refused to take the
pledge of total abstinence from intoxicating
liquors. This was done by man who, if
not at that time secretly drunkard, soon be-
came notorious for his addiction to that vice
We have no security for liberty Of conscience,
no protection from the tyranny of casual ma
iorities, if the principle be once admitted that
the Assembly can make anything beyond
what the constitution prescribes, a condition
either of admission into the ministry of our
| Church or of continuance in it. This is too
plain to be questioned. Yet this plain prin-
eiple is obviously violated in the minute
adopted on the Report of the Committee of
Bills and Oyertures.
Again, we make bold to express our con-
viction that the majority of the Assembly
will admit, on reflection, that their action in
reference to the Southern SynodS and Presby-
teries was altogether unnecessary. The OBJ
iect of that action was to prevent the admis-
sion of unworthy or undesirable ministers or
members into our Church 1t was said that
many, especially in the Border States, had
not only taken part in the rebellion, but had
Joined the guerrillas, committed acts of vio-
lence, or been the guide of depredators,
pointing out to them as objects of vengeance
the friends of the Union. How, it was
asked, could such men be recognized aud re.
eeived without repentance? How could
Christian people be expected to sit at the
Lords table, or receive the consecrated ele
meuts from hands red, it might be, with the
blood of their friends and brothers? 1t is
plain that Sessions aud PreSbyteries did not
need any act of the Assembly to authorize
them to deal with such crimes as these -
Joining the rebellion on the part of citizens
of States which had not seeded, was a civil
as we'll as moral offence. It was without
INV color of law IL was inst ms much