The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1873-03-19
For THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
THE REVISED RULES.

distinct from mere statement, in writing,
of the charges preferred against the accused
have In former communication, directed
attention to the fact, that the "Rales" make
no provision for the preparation of this i'm.
portant document. now desire to call at
tention to the 9Th chap, sec. 81, which pre-.
scribes all the preliminary steps of judi
cial prosecution, from the initiation of pro-
cess, to the arraignment Of the accused, and
which does not seem to require an "indict-
ment" at all. Whilst it is true that it re.
quires the charge to be "reduced to writ
ing," and that "fall copy of the charges
shall be furnished to the accused" and also
that, before the trial commences the "charges
shall be read to the accused" there is yet,
not the slightest indication that any thing
moro is required than full, though informal,
temtnr, ia writing, Of the ofegce. just
shat is required by the existing discipline.
THIS Interpretation is strengthened by the
9th sec. of this chapter, which requires that
in exhibiting charges, times, places, and
circumstances shall, if possible, be particu-
larly stated" &c. A provision wholly USE
less, where an "indctment" is indispensa
Bile, because to set forth, clearly, minutely
and with circumstance an offence, is the Pc
culiar province of an indictment" its
very essence. But when we reach the 18th
sec. of this 9Th chap, We find return to
the technical indictment" And it thus
appears, that in the four classes of the "Re.
vised Rules" which treat of the exhibition
of charges, viz: 5th chap, sec. 4th, and
9th chap, sec. 81, 5th, 18th, two of them
use the term indictment" whilst two use
the untechnical word charge" And that
all doubt, as to the sense in which the word
indictment" is used, may be removed, the
4th sec. OF chap. 5.t describes the dacu-
ment r3qpiri0g p to bsgfn sin thesname,
&C., showing that the term is used in its
distinct, technical sense, as distinguished
from the informal statement, in writing Of
an offence. And it seems equally clear that
the 81 sec. of chap. 9th cannot intend to
use the term charge" as synonym for in
dctment. If it did, it would hardly have
used the expression, when "a charge is laid
before the court it shall be "reduced to
writing" but would have said it shall be
"put into the form of an indictment"
Tae use of these different terms, with d.
verse meanings, must inevitably cast diff
Guilty and uncertainty over the Interpretation
of the "rules;" and that too in reference
TO the very subject--judicial prosecution
in which perspicuity and precision are espe- (
cially important. There might, perhaps, be
no difficulty in the Interpretation of these
clausss if they could be taken separately,
but as they must be construed together, and
as whole, | do not see how they can fail
to give rise to conflicting interpretations. 1t
may be true that an "indctment" is always
"cAarge," yet it is equally true, that a
charge, simply, is never an indictment"
And as there are two clauses of the Rules
upon each side, | fear the "wavering bal
ance will rarely be right adjusted"
l think it matter of small consequence
whether the technical term indictment" or
the common word "charge," is used by the
rules when describing the mode in which an
offence shall be established against the &C
cused party in Judicial process. But it is
of the first Importance that the same term
should always be used when prescribing the
manner in which an offence shall be set forth.
Doubt and uncertainty must always ensue,
where different terms, not strictly synony-
nous, are used to describe the same thing.
The 'revised rules" having made the Church
the "accuser in all cases" and required
every process to be pursued in its name,
there seems to be some incongruity in speak
ing Of "parties" before the courC, as if in
every case there were plaintiff and defen
dant, contending for victory. This is as lit
tie in harmony with the fundamental prin.
ciple of church discipline, as set forth in the
"rules," as it is with its true ends. Disci-
pline, as a Judicial prosecution, is employed
by the Church, through its courts, for specific
and well defined purposes, which can only
be accomplished by the court pursuing the
entire process with the dispassionate mOdera-
lion that should characterize judicial in
vestigaton, sanctifed and elevated by the
benign spirit of the gospel of peace. The
Church, therefore, being always present by
its court, as the accusing party, for the
maintenance of its "honor and purity"
cannot be required to withdraw, either judi
cially, or constructvey. See chapter 6, IA,
and 49, The latter says, "the parties" are
entitled to copies of the whole proceedings,
"at their own expense" Now the parties
are the "Church" and the accused. And
the records are those of court of the
Church. The Church, therefore, through
its courts, is entitled, of right, to as many
copies of its proceedings as it may want.
This 18th farther says "miDutes of the trial
shall be kept by the clerk, which shall ex
hibit the charges, &C., and all such acts,
orders and decisions of the court relating to
the cause as either party may desire" Now
it is the inherent right of every court to
determine what shall, and what shall not 60
Il