The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-11-15
THE MeCUNE CASE BEFORE THE SYNOD
OF CINCINNATI.


before the Presbytery of Cincinnati. 1t was
stated that both Mr.. McCune and DR.. Skinner
had carried certain points up to the Synod.
AS our readers may feel desire to know
what course was taken in these matters by
that venerable body, it is judged proper to
lay before them such information as we find
brought to light in some of the papers, both
religious and secular, together with such
comments as are suggested by some remark
able aspects of these proceedings.
The only question before the Synod was
one which, though it grew out of McCune'S
case, was, in regard to its merits, wholly
separate from it. 1t was complaint Of DR..
Skinner against the Presbytery touching
these three points. 1) DR.. Skinner had Of
fered in the Presbytery paper proposing
the investigation, under its supervisory pow
er, of certain matters in which McCune was
reported to have grievously impugued funda-
mental principles of his church and violated
its order. His motion, having a second, was
regularly before the court, but he was not
allowed to address the body, on the ground
that it was unconstitutional and out Of or
der. Against this action, throwing him out
of the court, he made complaint to the Synod.
(2.) That the Presbytery allowed DR.. Mon.
fort, chairman of the committee to whom the
paper of DR.. Skinner had been referred, "to
introduce documents filled with vituperative
epithets, gross personalities Of his personal
and ministerial character, and formally &C,
eepted the same, and allowed them to be
made and remain official documents on the
table of the Presbytery."
g. When DR.. Skinner was forced to retire
from the Presbytery, September 10, 1876, be-
cause of constant NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. which
the Presbytery did not arrest, while he, DR..
Skinner, was in ORDER he entered his pro-
test. The answer of the Presbytery was in
the face of the facts, as he alleges, and
makes false impression and of such char
aeter that no withdrawal Of his protest to
amend it, could remedy the wrong inflicted.
Against all these things he made com
plant to the Synod, with the reasons at
tached.
The Synod adopted the following paper
Whereas, The issuing Of the complaint of DR..
Skinner, as recommended By the Judicial Commit
fee, may prejudice the case, now known IS the Nc
Cune case, at present pending before the Cincln-
natl Presbvtery; therefore,
ReSolred, That the consideration of the report
of the judicial Committee, upon the said com
plant of Dr. Skinner, be, snd hereby is, postponed
until the issue Of the case Of Mr.. McCune by said
Presbytery.
The remarkable character of this paper
will appear from the following statements
1. There was no case at al Of McCune
before the Synod. He had, indeed, two pro
tests and complaints lodged in the hands Of
the Moderator, but for some reason they did
not come before the body. Nor has his
case been, as yet, framed so as to come be-
fore his Presbytery. All that is matter
of the future. How then could it be dam
aged before that body especially when it is
considered
?. That the Synod had no official infOrma-
ton of that case before it. 1t rightfully
knew not one syllable concerning it. How
then could it know whether hearing the COM
plant of DIR. Skinner could prejudice that
case before the Presbytery This point be-
comes the stranger when it is considered
8. That the Synod had no official infOrma-
ton about DR.. SINNERS complaint. 1t had
not heard syllable Of that any more than
of Mr.. McCune's case. Its action therefore
was based entirely upon parole evidence.
4. One of the most extraordinary things
in this action of the Synod is that, upon re-
commentator of the Judicial Committee
they had declared DR.. SINNERS complaint
in order, and had appointed an hour to take
it up and issue it. Yet in direct violation of
this they afterwsrd passed resolution in
which they determine that the considera-
ton of the report of the Judicial Con'mittee,
&C., be postponed" Why, the consideration
of that particular report, had been already
gone through with, when the Synod accepted
it, and had made it the subject of an order of
the day. The matter now for consideration
was not the report of the Committee, but the
complaint itself. That the inextricabls con-
fusion in which the Synod thus fell was felt,
is evident from the attempt made afterwards
to change the minute Of previous day, so
as to make it read Go the consideration of the
complaint instead of the "repOrt of the
Judicial Committee" which paper was de-
feated, and SO the blunder and Its embarrass-
ment remain on the hands of those who per-
petrated it.
This matter has excited much feeling in
the Synod, as well as out of it, and DR.. Skin
ner and others carry the matter by complaint
before their next General Assembly. 1t may
be doubted whether similar arbitrary, IN
constitutional proceeding can be found in all
the ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the Pres
byterian Church. 1t is in some respects a
more naked denial of justice than in the ''ipso
facto" despotism of 1866. Who ever heard
before of judicial case being accepted as
perfectly regular, every thing in order, all
the documents and parties present, and then
refusal to listen to the complainant? He
was virtually thrown out of court.
Those who have carefully watched this
case cannot fail to discover the poison that
is at work through it all, and which it is not