The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-06-07

published in several papers, that the Synod
of South Carolina censured the Presoytery
of Charleston for holding several regular
stated meetings without the presence OF
ruling elder. If they have done so. they
have, according to my judgment, acted con;
trary to the law of the Church. should
like to hear that part of their records read,
that we may know what they have really
done.
The clerk read from the Records of the
Synod: 1.-The committee on the records of
Charleston Presbytery recommend their APP
proval, with the following exception as to
the meeting held at Somerville, S. c., April
18th, 1867, at which there was no ruling
elder present; the committee offer the fol-
lowing resolution, Z. g., Resolved, that in the
Judgment of this Synod the meeting was
irregular, no ruling elder being present.
Mr.. Cater-Pronouncing that meeting
irregular, | hold to be contrary to the Con-
stitution of the Presbyterian Church The
General Assembly of '43 Tor Az decided
that question most emphatically-that
Presbytery had right when regularly
called, if no elder was present, to proceed to
business. That decision is our decision until
it is regularly repealed. There is very
great difference between that decision and
some other decisions from which you and
and all of us, most unheSitatingly dissent
1t was based upon papers regularly carried
up from Presbyteries and Synods, decided in
the first case by very large majority, and
subsequently by majority still larger. 1t
was held in the celebrated speech of Mr..
Hubbell in the great Presbyterian Church
Case" that decision of a General Assem-
bly, upon judicial case is binding upon the
entire body until it be regularly repealed.
The question then is not whether there ought
to be ruling elder present in aPresbytery,
but whether after the highest Court of the
Church has decided that question, any of our
lower Courts is at liberty to override that
decision. The Presbytery of '43 decided
this question by yeas SO, nays, 80. That
question was ably discussed by the strongest
men in our Church; it went to every Pres
bytery and to every Synod, and finally to
the Assembly of "A. 1t was not hastily de-
cided. One hundred and fifty-one voted age,
and of that number, SO were ruling elders.
The noes were "a; of them II were ruling
elders. That shows very decidedly what
was the opinion of the Presbyterian Church
at that time on the lawfulness and regularity
of Presbytery meeting without the pre-
sence of ruling elder. Shall we now de-
part from the rule of the Church before the
rule has been changed? 1t will be dan
gerous precedent. hope this body will
hesitate before it will give vote which even
by implication sanctions the action of the
Synod of South Carolina. You will remem-
Der, sir, that the General Assembly at Lou
isville decided at first by unanimous vote,
that that Presbytery had committed no ir-
regularity. Subsequently that vote was re-
considered, and after debate, indefinitely
postponed. That Assembly then stands in
the position of not having decided the ques-
ton either pro or CON. But the majority Of
the Presbyteries had decided that it was not
irregular for Presbytery to hold such a
meeting; they refused to adopt the NEW
Book. The whole history of the Presby-
terian Church in the United States, from its
incipiency, had endorsed that If these
meetings were irregular, then the very ordi-
nation of larger portion of the ministerial
members of the Synod Of South Carolina,
has been irregular. Mr.. John Simpson,
whose name is upon your book of 1888,
believe-your earliest book after the Gene
raj Assembly was formed-himself ordained
Mr.. Hugh Dickson in the Presbytery of S.
Carolina, in which there was not ruling ell.
der present; and from Mr.. Dickson have the
ordinations Of all these young brethren pre-
coded in regular order 1t is too late in the
day for us to declare such meeting irreg-
ular.
A Mem6er-The Book says. "Presbyte
ries shall be constituted of all the ministers
and as many elders as may be present.
There may be one, or ten thousand, or none
at all, just as it happens. There is nothing
in the world in the way of regular Pres
bytery.
The ModeratOr-The object in reviewing
the records of an inferior judicatory is the
examination, first, whether the proceeding;
have been constitutional andregular; second
ly, whether they have been wise, equitable
and for the edi6cation of the Church; third
ly, whether they have been correctly re
corded.
DR.. HU-This is very important ques
ton we are settling-one which has agitateC
the Presbyterian Church. [ am fully with
the Synod of South Carolina. l cannot
vote to censure them. While the lower
courts may be bound by the decisions of the
General Assembly, one General Assembly is
not bound by the decisions of another.
think that Presbytery was wrong and the
Synod was right. 1 have not thought about
the matter enough to 60 into general dis
cusson upon the merits of the question, but
hope the Assembly will not rush into de
cision without knowing what they are de-
Gliding. l would like to hear the question
discussed, and l would rather see it post
poned that we may have time to think about
it. 1t agitated the whole Church at one
time; there were protests and articles in
great numbers do not think we are pre-
pared to decide.
DR.. Krkpatrick-I do not think we are
prepared to enter upon the discussion Of
this matter. move to amend the report
by adding: cit being understood, however,
that this Assembly does not express any
opinion as to the propriety of the decision Of
the Synod in pronouncing irregular meet
ing of the Charleston Presbytery because
no ruling elder was present" This is sim,
ply to pass over this question for the present
The amendment was agreed to, and the re.
port as amended was adopted.
VALID BAPTISM.
DR.. Dabney-It pleased the last Assem-.
bly, to appoint a special committee upon the
subject of valid baptism, which seemed to