The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-07-03
PROTEST..

The undersigned, for themselves and others,
respectfully protest against the entire proceed
ings of the General Assembly concerning the
Louisville Presbytery ana the signers of the
Declaration and Testimony
l. The summary exclusion from this house of
the commissioners OF the Louisville Presbytery
under the operation of the previous question,
without allowing them or their friends one word
OF defense or explanation, was, in our Judgment
usurpatlon OF powers not belonging to the
General Assembly, gross invasion of the rights
OF Inc Presbytery, an act of oppression oWards
the Commissioners themselves, and violation
of those principles of Justice and equity which
every deliberatlve assembly, and especially a
Court OF Jesus Christ, is bound to hold inviolate
For proper analysis of this procedure we refer
to protest Of certain members of this body, TO
be found in the minutes of the 22d ult., and in
most OF the reasons for which the undersigned
concur.
We lay the utmost stress upon this point be-
cause every thing that followed pertaining to
this business must be Judged in the light OF the
fact that the Assembly was passing upon the
conduct Of men who, by its act not their own,
were not present to defend themselves. The
allegation that the Assembly offered to hear
them when report was introduced proposing
to visit upon them the severest penalties, can
be of no avail; for in the resolution of eXpu
sion it was their Presbytery which was ar.
ra9ned, and they could not properly return to
their seats without consulting their Presbytery.
Nor Is 1t believed that there was single mem
plead at the bar of court which had opened
their case by ejecting them from their seats
unheard, and three days after voted down q
resolution TO readmit them TO the seats until
their cases should be disposed of.
2. Throughout the entire course of these pro.
ceedings and pervading the elaborate argu.
ments of the majority it was maintained that
TINS TINS was judicial case" and that these
brethren were "on trialn before the Assembly
Whereas the notorious fact is that they had
never been arralgned and tried; that neither in
Presoytery nor Synod had there been any men.
uon OF formal charges, of citations, witnesses,
or any OF the steps essential under our Constitu.
ton to judicial process. The Form of Gov.
ernment and the Digest show that it is not com.
petent to judcatory to take up case judtcja,iy
on "Review and Control" And this plea Is
further debarred by the fact that the records of
thePresbytery Of Louisville were not before the
Assembly. AS the General Assembly has no
oIlglnal jurisdiction in cases of otIense, the
whole proceeding, in so far as the case was
treated judicially, was, in our Judgment ire.
gular and unconstitutional.
8. The case was BIASED by the action of a Con-
Ventlon called together to consider these very
matters on the eve of the Assembly's meeting.
ara slIung II was currently reported with
closed doors. The inflammatory memorial sent
10 the Assembly by this Convention (some of
mem members Of the Assembly, dlscloses a
state OF mind on the part of the authors iii
suited to calm and impartial deliberation
upon such questions as were involved in this
case - wa"
a, II Ano sSNellty OF tne judgment visited upon
these ttese Drethren was greatly disproportioned TO
thelr otense. No one had charged them with
heresy, or with immortality. The PRINCIPLES
aInrlnea IN their pamphlet are substantially the
principles Incorporated in our Confession of
talth and held by our whole Church They he
heVed that General Assemblies had violated the
principles and especially that the Assembly of
1866 had undertaken to impose certain laws
upon the Church in derogatlon of the plain
provision of our Constitution. In this belief
lhey are sustained by the Synods of New JERSEY
ana Phllaoelphla, by several Presbyteries, and
DY numerous ministers and laymen of the
church: Their error lay in the measures by
Whlch they sought TO redIess these evils We
90 not Justify them in these measures We con.
demn 1hem. But we insist that they should
nave been allowed to plead their own canse
without Its being prejudged, as it was by their
instant exclusion from their seats on the
second day OF our session. We insist that thev
should have been allowed time to review
posed) the offensive terms they had applied to
the General Assemblies of the Church. We do
not object to their being required 10 do this
and TO answer to their Presbyteries and Synods
and 10 the next Assembly as to what they NAV
nave done IN the premises; but we regard the
spirit and terms of their exclusion from all the
church Judlcatorles (the Session eXcepted) until
the next Assembly, and the contingent dissolu.
ton OF Presbyteries, as needlessly harsh mea.
sures, pregnant with evil to the Church, And
we tortity this conclusion by the fact. fully
established in debate, and controverted by no
one, that one of the Presbyteries now repre-.
sehted In this house, and even one OF more of
!he members of this very Assembly had used
language and performed acts quite as prepnant
WIN rebellion towards the Assembly, without
Dellg vS SUBJECTED to the slightest censure.