The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-03-30

them. Has it been successful?
LIST. 1t asserts the necessity that the sphere Of
action of each court should be distinctly defined.
That is well to begin with
>. 1.-The jurisdiction of each court is limited by
the express provisions of the Constitution. The
doctrine of DR.. Hodge and others Is that the As
sembly has all powers which are not expressly
taken away. These transcendent powers the new
Book denies to it.
8. Each court has Exclusive original jurisdic-
ton over all matters specially belonging to it.
Hence, being exclusive, no higher court can in-
terfere with or assume the powers of the lower
courts; but matters originating in the lower courts
can only 90 up to the higher courts in the manner
specified in the constitution.
1 When attempting "to suppress schismatical
contentious aud disputatons, the General Assem-
bly, must proceed according to the canOns pro-
vided therefor" The old Book, gives the author
ity, but without the limitation. Fl. j. says the
limitation amounts to nothing because he cannot
find any cauous on the subject They are there,
nevertheless. What are the "CanOns of Disci
pine" but regulations as to how members and OF
6cers of the Church are to be proceeded against
for immortality or heresy, and how the superior
courts are to exercise their powers in dealing with
the inferior courts? There is the section of Re
view and Control which viii prevent any Presby-
terry or minister from being de JactOed' out of
the church; there is the section "of References
and then ''of Appeals, aud last ''of Complaints. "
In one or the other of these various ways must the
matter come before the Assembly, and according
to the eanons therein laid down, must the Assem-
bly proceed. 1t has no unlimited powers; it must
always act within the limits of the constitution.
IF. j." thinks the declaration that these sew
eral courts are mot separate and independent tri-
bunas" is inconsistent with the statement that
'He original jurisdiction" Of each court is sec
cLlsjCe" But he omits an essential clause, which
explains what is meant, viz: that they sustain
mutual relations Destroy any of these courts and
you interrupt the vitality of the whole system
A Congregational council is separate aud indie
pendent tribunal 1t stands isolated, and from its
decision there is no appeal. But Presbyterianism
recognizes the unity of the Church. Every act OF
jurisdiction is the act of the whole Church. The
church session acts by the authority of the whole
church, and for it in admitting members. By the
distribution of power made in the constitution,
original Jurisdiction over this matter belongs ex-
cluSiyey to the session, and yet the most humble
and obscure session admits members to all the
rights and privileges attaching to membership in
/ the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
These rights can be forfeited by heresy or crime
only, and that after regular trial. and the member
may carry his cause to the highest court Of the
church. So with regard to ordaining ministers
The Presbytery has this power committed to it ex
clusvely by the constitution but it exercises fol
! the whole Church, not as a separate and indepen
dent tribunal after the manner Of congregational
ism, but as the constituted organ Of the Church,
after the doctrine of Presbyterianism. Our courts
are not separate and independent tribunals, but
they are the organs of the Church By which it ex-
ercises its powers of jurisdiction, and all its acts
have relation to the whole Church The eye is
the exclusive organ of sight and the ear the exclu
sive organ of hearing; but they are not separate
and independent organs, but they sustain mutual
relations, and are dependent for the performance
of their functions on the relation they sustain to
the whole organism of the body-without which
they are dead If the book had asserted that these
courts were not distinct the objection would be
well founded, but in what it does assert 1t is en-
tirely right aud the objection entirely wrong.
In what +. J. =" says in the last part of his ar
ticle we agree with him. The caution about care
fly observing the provisions Of the Constitution, is
out of place in the midst of document of this
kind. since it is the duty of judicatores to do this
at all times; and moreover, the clause is so gene
raj that it is worthless as a limitation of power.
We know one committee OF Presbytery which
has lust voted to strike it out, and hope it will be
done by all.
The other part, namely, the power of the As
sembly ito receive under its jurisdiction other &c
eesiastical bodies whose organization is cOnformed
to the doctrine and order of this Church, Is a
provision which it may be expected will seldom
come into practical operation but is matter far
too important not to be carefully guarded Omit
ting a number Of suggestions having general
bearing upon it, We propose to add the words
'lcth the consent of majority of the PesbgterieS.
A provision of this kind ought to be expressly In
serted some where in our Constitution. 1t is man.
/
that the General Assembly only can properly take
charge of the correspondence preparatory to such
union and arrange and proclaim its cOnsumma-
ton. But it ought not to have the power to make
that consummaton without the consent of the
Church expressed in the most complete form in
which it can be received, and that is by the action
of the Presbyteries.
.Ba6 suppose the objections of ''F j. ~ are all
valid the very object the Assembly had in sending
the Book down to the Presbyteries was to OBJ.
tain their suggestions and criticisms for its i'm
movement This is what comes before the Pres
byteries at their approaching meetings, and moth
ing else 1t is not before them for adoption or re-
lection, but for their objections and suggestions.
Now, if IF j. desires to secure a change of the
pbraseology of any sentence, or if ne wishes any
thing inserted, let it be sent up through his Pres
bvterv. 1t is the desire of the Assembly, and We
are sure it is the earnest wish of the committee
who had the responsibility of preparing the origi-
nal Book as laid before the Memphis Assembly
that every part of it should be carefully considered
BY all parts OF the Church; that it should be
amended and improved by the action of all the
courts. aud become not the work OF committee,
nor of the Assembly, but of the Church; and that
it shall never be adopted until it has been made &C,
ceptable to the Church, as Church. If there be
any divisive purpose, Or rash proceedings in the
Church, such as Unexpectedly urging its adoption,
we have failed to see the smallest indication of it.
Indeed, if we have any criticism to offer with re-
gard to the brethren whom the Assembly charged
with the duty of preparing this Book, it is that
thew have been too silent and backward; they have
not been as prompt as the Church rightly expected
in coming forward to yindicate the labor of their
hands