The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-04-12
THE pAE-PREsBYrERIAE ALLIANCE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.


The writer in the Bevisa0 brings itup as MS
last and " GROWING objection to a represen-
tation from our Assembly in this Alliance,
that "our own Constitution forbids it." He
holds that sour Assembly had precisely as
much right to appoint commissioners to such
a body, as to appoint a Grand Lama for
Thibet." That is a strong way of saying
that they have no right at all. Certainly
this is a vital point. If all we're agreed as
to the power of our Assembly under the Con,
stitution, it might, still, under certain cir
eumstances, be inexpedient to use 1t. But
if it is unconstitutional, there is an end OF
the matter as long as that Constitution IS
binding. The pressure of the whole quea-
ton is mainly at this point, and therefore it
demands most careful examination though
we do not think the argument need be long
one.
The reviewer presents dilemma, and pre-
sents it fairly. Itwould be well if the read
er will refresh his mind By referring to the
statement made by the author himself in bis
own forcible way. (See Central Presbyterian
of last week The substance is this:
Either this Presbyterian Alliance is to be
a judicatory exercising Church, power over
the Assembly, or it is not. If it is, then
representation in il is substantially o new
feature, outside of our Constitution; higher
court. This we have no right to establish
without change of our Constitution.
Ifit is not court, then it is a voluntary
meeting of Christians, and the Assembly has
no power to touch a mere voluntary assOeia-
ton. Having constructed thi5 dilemma,
our brother proposes to hang all dissenters
upon one or the other of its horns. When
some one asked an Irishmsn what was the
right pronunciation Of certain pronoun-
was it "neetIer or ajghther % ''Bless ye,
me honey" he replied, sits naythsr." So
it is here.
1. THIS Alliance as not Church Court
1t does not profess to be one. There is not
an intimation contained in its official dOeu
ments that its organization wa1 viewed in
such light. DR.. McCosh, who presided
over its deliberations, declared in public
address in London that it was not to be san
ecclesiastical body" It's powers are thus
defined in its Constitution
Article III, sec. SIS PoWeys. "The
Council shall have power to decide upon che
application of churches desiring to Join the
Alliance; it shall have power to entertain
and consider topics which may be brought
before it by any Church represented in the
Council, or by any member of the Council
on their being transmitted in the manner
hereinafter provided; But it shall not inter-
fere with the existing creed or constitution
of any Church in the Alliance, or with its
internal order or external relations
From this it is evident that it is not
higher Presbyterian Church Court than the
Assembly; that in fact it is not e Pfesbyte
rian Church Court at all.
,. 1t is not a Voluntary association. This
term has a meaning we'll understood, in this
country at least As related to this discus
sion it describes body of men mot neces
sarily excluding women associated together
TO consider and promote religious objects
It is not composed of delegates from church
es, they may indeed be all laymen) and it is
not responsible for its acts to any eoelesiss-
tical organization. The American Boards
of Foreign, of Home Missions, and of E1u-
cation, now under the management almost
exclusively Of CongregatiOaalists, are well
known examples. Now it IS manifest that
this Presbyterian Alliance is body consti-
tuted differently. It is composed Of dele
gates from Church Courts; these delegates
are all presbyters; (thst is ministers or 81 (
ders, and their action is reported to the DO I
dies sending them and to whom they are re- I
spOnsible. fit Bero 80, is It perfectly clear