The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-10-28
Inv one who confessed himself mistaken
L.,,,a ho allowed To withdraw.

preston for his last argument. Inc dehela'
. ssombly had uttered its voice on TINS suo-
cot There are only two ways by when
,,en,ber rsay leave the Church-Vlz., Dy
dcaih or accommodation Because Lex
inpton Presbytery had erred three times
hat was no reason why 1t should err aga,n'
After some further remarks by DR.. W hi,e,
Or. Peck arose to reply to question ny
Colonel Preston as to what minister shoula
do when he cannot exercise the functions OF
bis o1icef
DIR. Peck said that there was not person
in this body VIE did not believe taae W;
Tuffner was cor sc.sneAous In this matter, ana
that no was sincere ia declaring that he ala
not believe it to be hts Gasy to preach, ;,
Dr Rrown asked to correct DR.. Peck, and
so;d that the cause was rot that DR.. Runner
did not feel it to be his duty to preach, Out
that he could not preach-Swlng TO the con-
ditiou OF his throat. Wheserer ~ hls pre-
sent office he undertook to deliver an address
he always broke down.
DR.. Peck resumed. He did not believe
that there was any strict law for this actioh
of Presbytery, but he would be glad II any
brother would tell him what Presbytery
should have done with the case. This is one
NJ those cases in which we must act upon
the maxim sunanauna jus, sunln1d 1nJhrad-
that is, by the strict enforcement OF the letter
of the law YOU may do more harm Dy perse.
cutiny the consciences OF men than Oy perse-
cutting them with fire and sword.
DIR. Brown said that if it was true that 10
such case there was no release for minister
there was no parallel in human affairs TO
such a dilemma. There might be mistake
in the Prcsbytery's recognition OF a cindl-
daLe's call to the ministry. People VIII De
saving after he is sent out to preach, ana IL
will be universally said, that he has mistaken
his calling. Everybody says it was mis-
take. But that ordination, according TO the
arguments of brethren, must stand.
Dr. Lefcvre: Yes, sir.")
Then Presbytery is intaliolc. This is the
popi,h doctrine that the prie>tly character is
indelible Some brethren had called the
doctrine cirrus he would call the ordlna-
tion q uuiddity. If brethren insisted on such
y doctrine he would call it h0cuS p0cuS. he
would call it by all the ugly names he could
II b0cus no us would not do he would call II
African fetish" When the overture to as
cer-ain the sense of Presbyleries on the sub
iect Of dismiSsion was sent down III 1915
thirty-one Presoyteries were in favor OF 1t
and tweny.nne against it. But all the Pres
byterics did not rote-hcnce there was no
action; but the sentiment in favor of it,
which then had majority, had been grow.
ing ever since. Dr.. Brown thought that
there should not be a divided vote, and
therefore proposed to offer a resolution for
a committee of five to consider this subject
and bring in report at the next meeting oil
Synod.
Rev. DR.. Lefeyre offered illustrations
drawn from. the marriage relation and pa.
rental relation.
Dr.. Brown inquired if the ordination was
sealed BY the declaration "What God hath
Joined together let not man put asunder" .:
DR.. Lefevre said that he once had been
anxious to lay down the ministry, but now be
had rather die than cease to preach the COS.
pei.
Dr.. Peck said that DR.. Lefevre had not
answered bis question as to what Prcsbytery
should have done.
DIR. Lc!cvre said they should have left il
an open question:
DR.. Peck saw no force in DR.. Lcieyre's
analogics. The marriage relation was con.
tract between two parties, in which the
Church and the public were not concerned.
Presbytery having heard the confession of q
minister that he is not called have the same
evidence that be is not called that they had al
first that he was called. He did not believe
there was any mystic charm of ordination
A man might be ordained more than once
he might be ordained as pastor and then a.
q teacher in theological school, &c. He
agreed with DR.. Brown that the doctrine
once minister al,cayS q minister was
popiSh.
Or. Peck proceeded to present interesting
views Of call TO the ministry and TO the
various other offices of the Church.
Judge lugliS said that his side was not re-
quired to prove negative. Your constitu-
lion is not q system OF negationS, allowing
YOU to do everything that was not forbidden
When the Church provides for the reno va
of the elder and deacon, and makes DO pro-
vision for divesling Il minister Of his office
it shows by its declaration Of the law OIL
Christ that there is in its view no authority
for the dissolution of the bonds Of ministerial
ordination. Judge Inglis explained bis
opinion that the general teaching OF the Book
10 be an acting minister. Judge lnglis pre-.
sented several legal illustrations, which am
compelled to omit.
Judge Ould followed. Our constitution is
one of prohibitions ard not of grants. For
forty.nine out of fifty acts done by our Pres.
byteries there is no direct grant Of power.
Where are the limitations which prevent the
action of Lexington Presbytery? True,
there are limitations. One of the limitations
is that this Synod reviews the acts Of the
Prc>bytcry as this Synod is subject to the re-
view of the General Assembly. lie believed
81, No pt,rto InI
to act Us they did upon the general principles
Of authority granted it in the constitution,
and because ' on cannot point to any prohi-
billion of their action.
Your reporter regrets that ye Guilds
speech was made at SO late IN hour that the
length of the previous reports of speeches On
this subject forbidS a longer sketch OF his re.
marks
Rev. Mr.. Woods, of Norfolk, said the vote
of Presbyteries alluded ~ by DR.. Brown
showed that the General Assembly could
not pass u law for demission, and therefore
the subject was dropped. If asked what
Lexington Preshytery should have done, bis
reply was that Prcsbytery should have cx-
pressed its sympathy tor DR.. Rutfner, but
have declared. though the law worked hard
snip in particular eases, it must be sustained.
Mr.. Woods illustrated his position by several
citations from the operation of civil law.
The vote was then taken on striking out
or sustaining the exceptions 10 the action of
Lexington Presbytery. SrXty-one voted for
striking out and eighty-two for sustaining
them. BY this vote the action oil Lexington
Presbytery in diyesting DR.. Rutlner Of his
ministerial office was declared unconstitu-
hondI.
Dr. Smith then offered the following pa.
per:
"While Synod does not approve the ac-
ton of Lexington Presbytery, yet the
Sy nod does not desire to bind the conscience
mr. D,,H, hid H..